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.
Does not meet notability guidelines (low-ranking soldier), nor
WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has one citation to Iron Cross 2nd Class, the rest of the material in uncited. The article has been tagged "Refimprove" since 2010.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
07:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: Potential sources for Knight's Cross
here,
here and
here.
Here's the version as of
Nov 2015, before I edited the article. It had only one citation, Williamson, and had been tagged Refimprove since 2010. I believe that six years is sufficient time to improve an article.
"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's
highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See:
Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."
The GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Also pinging
Hydronium Hydroxide to see if they would like to revisit with the Nov 2015 version of the article in mind.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural Keep:
K.e.coffman's extended edits to the article and consideration of sources above are acknowledged. However, for such a pattern-based series of nominations this really needs a discussion, and possibly an RFC, at MILHIST since there appear to be over 3000 pages for which Veit Scherzer and Walther-Peer Fellgiebel are used as sources, they were removed from Sandrock and elsewhere, the talk page conversation with Peacemaker indicates controversy regarding source assessment, and higher grades of the Ritterkreuz were awarded for subsequent awards rather than being initially attainable. If consensus from that is that large numbers of Ritterkreuz recipients do not warrant separate articles, then AFDs for most should not even be required. Instead, redirect any which fall under agreed criteria to aggregated list articles such as
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the U-boat service and leave their categories in their redirected articles (with a brief capsule bio for such recipients possibly included against their names in the aggregated list articles). It's a much better option than piecemeal nominations with the probability of inconsistent results depending on who responds, and the possibility of thousands of Ritterkreuz-related AFDs. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~12:30, 16 June 2016 (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.
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.
Does not meet notability guidelines (low-ranking soldier), nor
WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has one citation to Iron Cross 2nd Class, the rest of the material in uncited. The article has been tagged "Refimprove" since 2010.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
07:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: Potential sources for Knight's Cross
here,
here and
here.
Here's the version as of
Nov 2015, before I edited the article. It had only one citation, Williamson, and had been tagged Refimprove since 2010. I believe that six years is sufficient time to improve an article.
"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's
highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See:
Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."
The GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Also pinging
Hydronium Hydroxide to see if they would like to revisit with the Nov 2015 version of the article in mind.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural Keep:
K.e.coffman's extended edits to the article and consideration of sources above are acknowledged. However, for such a pattern-based series of nominations this really needs a discussion, and possibly an RFC, at MILHIST since there appear to be over 3000 pages for which Veit Scherzer and Walther-Peer Fellgiebel are used as sources, they were removed from Sandrock and elsewhere, the talk page conversation with Peacemaker indicates controversy regarding source assessment, and higher grades of the Ritterkreuz were awarded for subsequent awards rather than being initially attainable. If consensus from that is that large numbers of Ritterkreuz recipients do not warrant separate articles, then AFDs for most should not even be required. Instead, redirect any which fall under agreed criteria to aggregated list articles such as
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the U-boat service and leave their categories in their redirected articles (with a brief capsule bio for such recipients possibly included against their names in the aggregated list articles). It's a much better option than piecemeal nominations with the probability of inconsistent results depending on who responds, and the possibility of thousands of Ritterkreuz-related AFDs. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~12:30, 16 June 2016 (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.