Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shame of Gaeta

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Shame of Gaeta}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shame_of_Gaeta Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Shame of Gaeta}})

The content of this article cannot be verified by RS. In fact, a significant portion of its claims seem dubious. 1.) There is no evidence that Nazi propaganda spoke of the outcome of this referendum on the Anschluss as "Schande von Gaeta". On the contrary see the pertinent collection of primary sources NS-Presseanweisungen der Vorkriegszeit Vol 6/I.: 1938 Quellentexte Januar bis April, Munich 1999. Document 1109, DNB-Rundbrief of 11 April 1938, advises the German press: "Die Meldung ueber die Abstimmung auf dem Panzerschiff Admiral Scheer nicht aufmachen, aber gut platzieren, aber ohne Kommentar". (The news release about the referendum on the battleship Admiral Scheer not to be highlighted, but to be placed well, but without comment. (p. 381) 2.) There is no evidence that historical literature uses the expression, except for one, maybe two pieces which clearly quote Alois Hudal. 3.) The referendum at Gaeta was one of several for Austrian and German expatriates on German warships. It was not a referendum of Catholic seminarians alone. (see Volker Koop: Hitlers fünfte Kolonne. 2009, S. 129.) 4.) There are two sources which suggest that the outcome of the poll was 90% against the Anschluss. One is a Catholic Polish internet magazine which does not cite any sources. The other is an article by Robert A. Graham. He neither cites any sources to back up his claim. These claims seem dubious, because 5.) According to the Neues Wiener Tageblatt, 12. April 1938[http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=nwg&datum=19380412&seite=24&zoom=33&query=%22Gaeta%2BScheer%22~50&ref=anno-search] 6,348 persons cast their vote upon the Scheer. 358 of these voted "No", 135 votes were not valid. Thus 92% approved of the Anschluss, which was much less than was expected by the Nazis and less than on the other warships. This was blamed on the hostile German exiles and priests. Those were called "Unbelehrbare" (unteachables). Assayer (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- This is a significant subject that ought not to be obliterated from WP, but if nom's assertions are correct, it would be better if this were dealt with through merging this into a broader article on the Anschluss referendum or its extra-territorial aspects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. The claim of 90% voting against the Anschluss can't be verified, and there is little indication that the event of only 90% voting for had any importance whatsoever. Sure, it could be mentioned in an article detailing the expatriate votes for the Anschluss referendum, but are there any reliable sources for that at all? Best keep option probably is to redirect to Shame of Gijón as redirect from misspelling ;) —Kusma (t·c) 09:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - It doesn't seem to me that it would be very hard to verify this with an independent source. As Graham seems to be not quite independent and Hudal certainly isn't, this fails WP:V/WP:RS. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Does seem dubious and cannot verify; even if it could be verified, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NEOLOGISM: Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Article is about a vote among an small group of people of no importance whatsoever, and the result appears to have been misrepresented in the article. Assayer raises some good points about the article's factual accuracy. Alois Hudal is an interesting character, but this incident is not worth mentioning in his article, much less in the Anschluss article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.