Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler bell

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus on a merger target. There is no consensus to delete this text, however there is also no clear consensus on what the ideal merge target would be, if it's not kept as a standalone. It does not appear clear that a consensus is forthcoming, and the best location between List of Hitler bells, St._Jacob's_Church,_Herxheim_am_Berg or remaining as is does not require continuation in this format and can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 22:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler bell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a stub article about a church bell dedicated to Hitler, written in 2018 when it was in the news because the local council voted to keep it. This isn't sustained coverage. It's already mentioned in Herxheim am Berg. asilvering (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE failure. Google news link shows 2013-2019 coverage. Link #2 is NYT, #4 is BBC, #5 is NBC. Other coverage not currently in article is available from The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and others. Nom assertion of lack of sustained coverage is simply inaccurate. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a couple from Scholar, too: [1] (paywalled [2] appears to be original), and ISBN 978-90-04-46222-9 which appears to be too new to be on Amazon yet. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this is not a WP:BEFORE failure; we simply appear to be interpreting the guidelines at WP:SUSTAINED differently. If I'm reading you correctly, your position is something like "coverage over a long enough period of time is 'sustained coverage' by definition." Since you're also !voting for keep, I am inferring here that you take that further, to "anything with sustained coverage is by definition notable, and everything notable belongs in its own wikipedia article." I'll explain my reasoning for mentioning WP:SUSTAINED, my use of which is open to correction by you or anyone else; however, I don't think "you referred to the wrong guideline, and anyway, it was in the news over a period of several years" is a particularly compelling argument for keep either way.

In my view, if WP:SUSTAINED meant "a subject must receive news coverage over a period of n months/years" and nothing else, it would simply say so. That would be both clearer and shorter than what it says now. Instead, it appears to be alluding to two related arguments: something like "a brief burst of news coverage may appear to be enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to pass WP:GNG, but may still be insufficient grounds for an article," and "significant coverage related only to a single event may not warrant an article." The latter here explicitly refers to BLPs, but it could apply just as easily to "typically non-notable" subjects - like, for example, a churchbell.

That section refers us to WP:EVENT, which clearly states that inclusion is justified when "the event is of lasting, historical significance." It seems a bit much to argue that this bell is an object of lasting, historical significance, and even more (in my opinion, at least) to argue that the controversy over what should be done about the bell is of lasting, historical significance. It is not likely to be the catalyst for something else of lasting significance, or have a significant impact over a wide region, two other general criteria given there. For these reasons, my understanding of this guideline is that "sustained coverage" refers not just to "coverage over a period of time," but rather to "coverage over a period of time, such that the subject's likely lasting, historical significance is demonstrated or at least implied," a standard that I do not believe is met by this object or the controversy about it.

Perhaps this is a misreading, and indeed anything that receives newspaper attention over a period of months or years satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. Very well. However, it does not follow from this that anything with said newspaper attention belongs in its own Wikipedia article. Your Scholar links are a good example of why: this object and its related controversy is interesting not in itself, but as an example of Vergangenheitsbewältigung - how we cope with our past, especially in a post-1945 German context. Is it a particularly important example of dealing with collective historical guilt? It does not appear to be so - or, at least, not yet. (Here is the only relevant sentence in that first Scholar link: "We might keep them as part of our cultural heritage, like the “Hitler Bell” still hanging in Herxheim am Berg, Germany.") Until that hypothetical day arrives, it's better placed in another article. One might suggest the article for the church itself, but, understandably, no one has yet created an article for this church in a German town of under 1000 residents. It is, however, as I mentioned, already in the article for Herxheim am Berg.

Since this is now significantly longer than the deletion-nominated stub at hand, a tl;dr: we appear to disagree on the meaning of WP:SUSTAINED; however, regardless of whether either of us are correct about WP:SUSTAINED and indeed regardless of whether there is only one true way to read it, this topic does not need a standalone article. -- asilvering (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure a standalone article makes sense. Why bury it in as an UNDUE portion of an article about a town? How would that even help anything? It's a controversial Nazi-era "monument" serving in a municipal church in Germany that's made worldwide headlines. It's going to come up again and again until someone destroys it or it is relocated. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge -- I doubt the bell is individually notable enough to deserve an article of its own. I doubt that the bell is dedicated to Hitler, rather I suspect that it carries a quotation from him with his name. It seems that today cancel culture is so strong and Hitler so toxic that public figures cannot even use a simile involving him without others attacking them for it. This is obviously a controversial case, where some did not like the decision of the local council. The bell is presumably in the church tower where the inscription is invisible and would be almost unknown but for this ATTACK article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify why you think notability is at issue here? It's received significant independent RS coverage from over half a dozen media outlets--that's well above the GNG threshold. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is discussed in German Wikipedia in Jakobskirche (Herxheim am Berg)#Glocke aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. The section quotes many German sources. I have written a stub St. Jacob's Church, Herxheim am Berg, the Hitler bell may be moved there.

Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have written also List of Hitler bells. Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've ported the relevant half of the stub over and cleaned it up a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are discussions in Germany if such bells may be preserved, replaced or commented by inscriptions. There are plenty of sources, in German only.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - hence my remarks above, that this particular bell belongs as part of another article, rather than a single one of its own. -- asilvering (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have much less heartburn merging the content here into a list of similar Nazi-era bells, than to simply merging it into a town where one happens to be. Jclemens (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: People should also discuss a possible merger with the new List of Hitler bells, which is currently wrongly labeled a dab page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that none of the four people who have commented have strong objections to the list of Hitler bells? I've already added the info - there really is only two lines of it in the original stub article. -- asilvering (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you confident List of Hitler bells will survive AFD? It seems to me the problem with creating the list article is that someone can nominate it for deletion claiming it fails WP:NLIST because the group of bells as a whole has not been discussed by independent reliable sources. It would be irrelevant whether the separate bells are or are not notable. The list could be saved if it provided navigational purposes but, unless there are articles on the bells themselves, this would also fail. AFD is a terrible venue for conducting constructive editing. Thincat (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. But if someone is determined to keep the list, they can have that argument on that AfD, were anyone to nominate it. Further, if the list is deleted, there is still also St. Jacob's Church, Herxheim am Berg (which is where German Wikipedia has it), and indeed Herxheim am Berg. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly because it's analyzed by few academic pieces Jclemens provided. Otherwise, I would have voted to Merge. While a regular Google search gives me loads of entries (a lot from reputable entries worldwide) they are always news announcements for the same three events. The bell gained controversy and resulted in the town mayor's resignation (2017), town population voted to keep it (Feb 27, 2018), and court ruled it could stay (Jan. 2019). Admittedly I'm going off of headlines here instead of looking at the prose of these pieces to see if there's anything unique between each of them, but how could a set of events that limited be its own article? On a side note, honestly, I'm more disturbed at Heil Honey I'm Home! having enough WP:SUSTAINED for its own article. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 03:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being accused of bludgeoning, since you're pointing at the academic pieces as your reason for keep, I think it's very important to point out that, of those three academic links, the second is a pre-print copy of the first, and the first only says: "We might keep them as part of our cultural heritage, like the “Hitler Bell” still hanging in Herxheim am Berg, Germany." That is the sum total of analysis there - just a passing mention. The third one, I don't think any of us have read, so we don't have any evidence that it's not just a passing mention either. -- asilvering (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see sustained significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.-- Mike 🗩 19:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.