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 been tagged since 2013.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Nom's comment: Following the
suggestion on my Talk page, I'm providing a
Oct 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. The article's material was not cited to any sources, and the article has already been tagged "Refimprove" since 2013. The same editor pointed out to me that the names of Knight's Cross recipients are often listed in list articles, which s indeed the case here:
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (W), with a citation for the Knight's Cross.
Thanks for the ping. This is a similar situation to the
Paul Senghas AFD, where the individual now passes
WP:SOLDIER as a reference to the Knight's Cross has been provided, but remains a non-notable individual nonetheless due to their failing GNG. As I said there, "SOLDIER says that "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if they have received the highest valour award... There is not sufficient coverage, regardless of the reference for the Knight's Cross, to meet GNG standards. After all, SOLDIER is an essay, while GNG is a policy. I continue to support deletion."
GABgab23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as the Knight's Award is the best claim here but even then, the article is still questionable thus delete as there's nothing else to suggest the convincing notability improvements.
SwisterTwistertalk00:22, 23 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 been tagged since 2013.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Nom's comment: Following the
suggestion on my Talk page, I'm providing a
Oct 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. The article's material was not cited to any sources, and the article has already been tagged "Refimprove" since 2013. The same editor pointed out to me that the names of Knight's Cross recipients are often listed in list articles, which s indeed the case here:
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (W), with a citation for the Knight's Cross.
Thanks for the ping. This is a similar situation to the
Paul Senghas AFD, where the individual now passes
WP:SOLDIER as a reference to the Knight's Cross has been provided, but remains a non-notable individual nonetheless due to their failing GNG. As I said there, "SOLDIER says that "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if they have received the highest valour award... There is not sufficient coverage, regardless of the reference for the Knight's Cross, to meet GNG standards. After all, SOLDIER is an essay, while GNG is a policy. I continue to support deletion."
GABgab23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as the Knight's Award is the best claim here but even then, the article is still questionable thus delete as there's nothing else to suggest the convincing notability improvements.
SwisterTwistertalk00:22, 23 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.