- 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 Keep and split/rename into List of World War I U-boat commanders and List of World War II U-boat commanders Consensus is against retaining the "most successful" and "ranking" portions of the article, but retaining (if revising) the content as sortable lists. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
List of most successful U-boat commanders
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of most successful U-boat commanders ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is the only list like this on the English Wikipedia. That would in itself not disqualify it from existence, but compare to the closest topic area, fighter aces. None of them use this title format (ex: List of World War II aces from China). Next ask yourself, "Can this not be part of a greater "List of submarine commanders", or a series of them by war and nation?" Do we really need to have this big temple to the German military here? ♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
DeleteSplit per Clarityfiend with removal of the SYNTH ranking. Current article fails WP:LISTN and is the result of considerable WP:SYNTH especially the ranking. This seems to be entirely modelled off and sources from one website. I can only find one limited source that comes anywhere close to this kind of grouping and ranking and I do not think this justifies the article. Listcruft and warcruft. On a personal note, I find this list quite disgusting in the way it speaks about the killing of humans as 'top-scoring' like a video game -leading me to have a preference for a Speedy Delete. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 01:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)- Delete or Speedy Delete Per the nom and @ Vladimir.copic Fails WP:LISTN as this WP:OR list doesn't meaningfully exist in the real world, it's just a WP:SYNTH compilation using original ranking criteria. Given that the article discuses the killing of real human beings as if this is about a video game, I agree that it has no place on Wikipedia and should be removed as soon as possible. Newshunter12 ( talk) 03:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom and User:Vladimir.copic. Listcruft.Split per Clarityfiend below Mztourist ( talk) 06:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)- Comment Uboat.net is fairly reliable (there was a discussion on this at Milhist) and they give their sources here. Tonnage sunk is a fair marking of impact, and in histories I've read of submarine warfare the tonnage sunk is given in the same way as pilot's shootdowns. There was a question over whether tonnage sunk accrues to commanders or the ships which led to a change in Milhist 'policy'. I note there is a parallel list at List of most successful German U-boats which is much shorter. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 09:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Perfect valid list. This is what they are known for.
[1] Anywhere that mentions them mentions these stats. Need more references to the article though. The first guy has a reference in his article to how many ships he sunk, but its not in English so I can't read it. The second guy has no references to that information at all, and just one reference in the entire article. This information should be referenced in the articles as well as here in the list article. I see 60 people listed total and only 52 references. I would assume any books about U-boats would have a list like this in them.
Dream Focus 18:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- We need reliable sources discussing this as a group and ranking the list in the way this article does to meet WP:LISTN as well as to avoid the WP:SYNTH currently on this page. My WP:BEFORE didn't give anything, what did yours turn up? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rename it
List of U-boat commanders and list all those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. They are already listed at
Category:U-boat commanders. Valid navigational list and provides more information than a category would.
Dream Focus 00:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why don't we just merge into the existing lists on these pages? Occam's razor and all. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 01:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not the same thing. This article is for the commanders of individual u-boats. That one is for listing their supreme commanders of the division all u-boats were in.
Dream Focus 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ah yes - my mistake. But as a certain editor often says: My vote! stands. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rename it
List of U-boat commanders and list all those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. They are already listed at
Category:U-boat commanders. Valid navigational list and provides more information than a category would.
Dream Focus 00:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: fails
WP:LISTN as "most successful commanders" only appear to be discussed as a group on uboat.com. Thus the page fails
WP:SYNTH. uboat.net is a user-generated, self-published site; unlike Wikipedia, uboat.net does not cite individual statements, so it's even less verifiable than Wikipedia. The list is not necessary since
Category:U-boat commanders (Kriegsmarine), and a similar cat for WWI commanders, does a fine job of producing an on-demand list. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 03:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Did you read the second paragraph at WP:LISTN? The first paragraph reads: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. That's one reason, not the only acceptable reason. The second paragraph reads: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I would point to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. "Not necessary" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy is clear that you can have categories and lists for the same thing. Dream Focus 09:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Split into List of World War I U-boat commanders and List of World War II U-boat commanders and make the ships and tonnage sunk columns sortable. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Split per Clarityfiend. Perfectly valid lists of often notable individuals. Arguments that these should be deleted because they're nasty Nazicruft and insulting to the deceased should obviously be discounted as pure POV. These are facts and the subject of numerous studies, whether you like them or not. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 09:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- This "facts not feelings" reply totally misses the point. These men are not notable because they killed dozens of men; they are notable because they were military commanders, and I and others as you can see above believe there are better ways to list and sort them than the amount of notches on their pistols. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, it’s the ranking form of this article that I believe is WP:SYNTH and only reflected on uboat.net with no other sources grouping like this. Unfair to reduce this to POV or IDONTLIKEIT. The “top-scoring” comment is juvenile and offensive but I said this was only my opinion. That being said Clarityfiend’s solution would fix this and I will change my vote accordingly.
Vladimir.copic (
talk) 13:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with listing what they are famous for, how many ships they sunk. Same way with List of serial killers by number of victims, List of rampage killers, List of mass shootings in the United States, List of major terrorist incidents, and others of the sort. Just as the main article lists the kills, so do the list articles about it. Dream Focus 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and rename it List of U-boat commanders per Dream Focus. I share Necrothesp's objections to the first three delete votes that appear to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The mere assertion that this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR is not convincing either. If it's not possible to reach a consensus, split per Clarityfiend. Renewal6 ( talk) 13:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and split per Clarityfiend. Agree with Necrothesp re: the IDONTLIKEIT votes, and the assertion above that "'most successful commanders' only appear to be discussed as a group on uboat.com" is a baseless assertion betraying a complete lack of knowledge of the range of reliable sources on this subject in German and English. Exhaustive research and resulting books by notable submarine historians like
Jürgen Rohwer, who was a professor of history at the University of Stuttgart: Axis Submarine Successes of World War Two: German, Italian, and Japanese Submarine Successes, 1939-1945 (1999) has even more detail than this list on notable WWII U-boat commanders and their successes, as well as analysis of same. He wasn't some fanboi, he was a serious historian who obviously thought this stuff mattered. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Commander, as it appears the consensus is now to keep but alter the list, and the topic will likely expand to submariners of other nations, are you aware of sources for submariners for other navies? –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- As long as a similar article on submariners of other navies does not exist it should not be the topic of this AfD discussion.
Renewal6 (
talk) 22:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Renewal6: You misunderstand my question; look again at my nomination statement. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 23:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- A list of submarine commanders attempting to include all commanders of all navies would obviously be too extensive. You'll be free to create a similar article on American or Japanese submarine commanders, if you're able to provide reliable sources and if you're interested in a series of them by war and nation. However, as long as it does not exist we should not discuss merging or renaming this article here on the basis of it. Renewal6 ( talk) 10:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Renewal6: You misunderstand my question; look again at my nomination statement. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 23:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- As long as a similar article on submariners of other navies does not exist it should not be the topic of this AfD discussion.
Renewal6 (
talk) 22:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Commander, as it appears the consensus is now to keep but alter the list, and the topic will likely expand to submariners of other nations, are you aware of sources for submariners for other navies? –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and rename, total tonnage sunk is one criteria for listing, but there are others, like being a Knight’s Cross holder. — Nug ( talk) 10:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to
List of German submarine commanders. To be successful is too subjective, not a fact. The list is about German commanders.
My very best wishes (
talk) 01:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- As per the Wikipedia article on U-boats, "U-boats were naval submarines operated by Germany, particularly in the First and Second World Wars." Why should it not be explicit enough to rename it List of U-boat commanders? Renewal6 ( talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The question of whether the ranking criteria are OR needs more discussion; splitting wouldn't resolve that. Editos should also discuss whether removing the ranking, making it a mere alphabetical list, would resolve the problem as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- What I and somebody else suggested was taking out the "most successful" bit from the list (or lists). That takes care of the OR issue. The number of ships/tonnage sunk is documented. If someone did want to rank them, then letting them sort by those two columns (maybe number of patrols too?) would do the trick.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support the Clarityfiend Proposal. All "Most successful" bunk should be axed, and the list should be renamed and broken in half for the two World Wars. The lists should be ordered alphabetically by default, but use sortable tables and include details such as the date as a submarine commanders were active as such and tonnage sunk. For non-sortable columns, include submarines commanded by that individual. Let these new lists stand as examples for other submarine commander lists. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I additionally propose that awards should not be mentioned on these lists, and that they should not include the word "U-boat" in the title. That distinction should not be made because it is a tomato tomatoe situation. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Vami IV: We would stumble into
WP:OR with a mere alphabetical list, because it would suggest to the reader that all the included persons are treated equally by the sources, which is obviously not the case. Your additional proposal that awards should be removed from the list does not appear to be policy-based, but based on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Excluding "U-boat" from the title had already been suggested by My very best wishes, see above.
Renewal6 (
talk) 02:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am confused by the idea that alphabetical ordering by surname would be OR. It would be NPOV. My objection to inclusion of military awards is an objection to
WP:SIZE bloat, which tables are prone to. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 02:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- The ranking is based on facts discussed by reliable sources other than uboat.net, and it does not contain a personal opinion on the achievements of the German military. Hence, it does not violate WP:NPOV. It would be borderline OR to withhold the ranking from the reader, because the inclusion criteria for the list are directly connected to it. Otherwise, it may appear as though we present a list of 50 WW2 U-boat commanders that we arbitrarily consider to be the most notable. Objections to WP:SIZE are fine, but I think it's more reasonable to discuss them at the talk page of the article. Too many additional proposals on how to change the article just make it harder to reach a consensus on the actual topic of the AfD debate. Renewal6 ( talk) 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am confused by the idea that alphabetical ordering by surname would be OR. It would be NPOV. My objection to inclusion of military awards is an objection to
WP:SIZE bloat, which tables are prone to. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 02:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Vami IV: We would stumble into
WP:OR with a mere alphabetical list, because it would suggest to the reader that all the included persons are treated equally by the sources, which is obviously not the case. Your additional proposal that awards should be removed from the list does not appear to be policy-based, but based on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Excluding "U-boat" from the title had already been suggested by My very best wishes, see above.
Renewal6 (
talk) 02:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I additionally propose that awards should not be mentioned on these lists, and that they should not include the word "U-boat" in the title. That distinction should not be made because it is a tomato tomatoe situation. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support the Clarityfiend Proposal. All "Most successful" bunk should be axed, and the list should be renamed and broken in half for the two World Wars. The lists should be ordered alphabetically by default, but use sortable tables and include details such as the date as a submarine commanders were active as such and tonnage sunk. For non-sortable columns, include submarines commanded by that individual. Let these new lists stand as examples for other submarine commander lists. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- What I and somebody else suggested was taking out the "most successful" bit from the list (or lists). That takes care of the OR issue. The number of ships/tonnage sunk is documented. If someone did want to rank them, then letting them sort by those two columns (maybe number of patrols too?) would do the trick.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière and Otto Kretschmer are clearly referred to as the #1 U-boat commanders based on their tonnage sunk by reliable sources. Neither the ranking criteria nor the statistics they depend on are an invention of Wikipedia or uboat.net, so the list fulfills WP:NOR. Because of that, I would oppose removing the ranking itself, but support making the ships and tonnage sunk columns sortable. I agree with Clarityfiend that renaming the article by leaving out "most successful" resolves the legitimate WP:OR issues with the title format. Renewal6 ( talk) 21:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Split per Clarityfiend. This is is a SYNTH list, and combining the performance of commanders in two different wars has no basis in the sources. Probably only done because the Germans happened to call their ships "U-boats" during the both conflicts, and that's not enough. - Indy beetle ( talk) 02:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, as topic is notable, but it needs renaming Jackattack1597 ( talk) 22:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Always necessary to read through an article's history before beginning a deletion process. It was merged in 2008 with an article called "List of U-Boat Aces." Then renamed "List of Successful U-Boat Commanders," then renamed "List of Most Successful U-Boat Commanders" as the page only listed "top scorers." That answers your first question. Content-wise, rename it again if necessary, but it meets notability; this is an important piece of history and encyclopedic content. " List of U-Boat Commanders" could be good, as Renewal6 has proposed. Knightoften ( talk) 04:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was Keep and split/rename into List of World War I U-boat commanders and List of World War II U-boat commanders Consensus is against retaining the "most successful" and "ranking" portions of the article, but retaining (if revising) the content as sortable lists. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
List of most successful U-boat commanders
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of most successful U-boat commanders ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is the only list like this on the English Wikipedia. That would in itself not disqualify it from existence, but compare to the closest topic area, fighter aces. None of them use this title format (ex: List of World War II aces from China). Next ask yourself, "Can this not be part of a greater "List of submarine commanders", or a series of them by war and nation?" Do we really need to have this big temple to the German military here? ♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
DeleteSplit per Clarityfiend with removal of the SYNTH ranking. Current article fails WP:LISTN and is the result of considerable WP:SYNTH especially the ranking. This seems to be entirely modelled off and sources from one website. I can only find one limited source that comes anywhere close to this kind of grouping and ranking and I do not think this justifies the article. Listcruft and warcruft. On a personal note, I find this list quite disgusting in the way it speaks about the killing of humans as 'top-scoring' like a video game -leading me to have a preference for a Speedy Delete. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 01:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)- Delete or Speedy Delete Per the nom and @ Vladimir.copic Fails WP:LISTN as this WP:OR list doesn't meaningfully exist in the real world, it's just a WP:SYNTH compilation using original ranking criteria. Given that the article discuses the killing of real human beings as if this is about a video game, I agree that it has no place on Wikipedia and should be removed as soon as possible. Newshunter12 ( talk) 03:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom and User:Vladimir.copic. Listcruft.Split per Clarityfiend below Mztourist ( talk) 06:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)- Comment Uboat.net is fairly reliable (there was a discussion on this at Milhist) and they give their sources here. Tonnage sunk is a fair marking of impact, and in histories I've read of submarine warfare the tonnage sunk is given in the same way as pilot's shootdowns. There was a question over whether tonnage sunk accrues to commanders or the ships which led to a change in Milhist 'policy'. I note there is a parallel list at List of most successful German U-boats which is much shorter. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 09:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Perfect valid list. This is what they are known for.
[1] Anywhere that mentions them mentions these stats. Need more references to the article though. The first guy has a reference in his article to how many ships he sunk, but its not in English so I can't read it. The second guy has no references to that information at all, and just one reference in the entire article. This information should be referenced in the articles as well as here in the list article. I see 60 people listed total and only 52 references. I would assume any books about U-boats would have a list like this in them.
Dream Focus 18:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- We need reliable sources discussing this as a group and ranking the list in the way this article does to meet WP:LISTN as well as to avoid the WP:SYNTH currently on this page. My WP:BEFORE didn't give anything, what did yours turn up? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rename it
List of U-boat commanders and list all those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. They are already listed at
Category:U-boat commanders. Valid navigational list and provides more information than a category would.
Dream Focus 00:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why don't we just merge into the existing lists on these pages? Occam's razor and all. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 01:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not the same thing. This article is for the commanders of individual u-boats. That one is for listing their supreme commanders of the division all u-boats were in.
Dream Focus 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ah yes - my mistake. But as a certain editor often says: My vote! stands. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rename it
List of U-boat commanders and list all those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. They are already listed at
Category:U-boat commanders. Valid navigational list and provides more information than a category would.
Dream Focus 00:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: fails
WP:LISTN as "most successful commanders" only appear to be discussed as a group on uboat.com. Thus the page fails
WP:SYNTH. uboat.net is a user-generated, self-published site; unlike Wikipedia, uboat.net does not cite individual statements, so it's even less verifiable than Wikipedia. The list is not necessary since
Category:U-boat commanders (Kriegsmarine), and a similar cat for WWI commanders, does a fine job of producing an on-demand list. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 03:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Did you read the second paragraph at WP:LISTN? The first paragraph reads: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. That's one reason, not the only acceptable reason. The second paragraph reads: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I would point to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. "Not necessary" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy is clear that you can have categories and lists for the same thing. Dream Focus 09:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Split into List of World War I U-boat commanders and List of World War II U-boat commanders and make the ships and tonnage sunk columns sortable. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Split per Clarityfiend. Perfectly valid lists of often notable individuals. Arguments that these should be deleted because they're nasty Nazicruft and insulting to the deceased should obviously be discounted as pure POV. These are facts and the subject of numerous studies, whether you like them or not. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 09:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- This "facts not feelings" reply totally misses the point. These men are not notable because they killed dozens of men; they are notable because they were military commanders, and I and others as you can see above believe there are better ways to list and sort them than the amount of notches on their pistols. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, it’s the ranking form of this article that I believe is WP:SYNTH and only reflected on uboat.net with no other sources grouping like this. Unfair to reduce this to POV or IDONTLIKEIT. The “top-scoring” comment is juvenile and offensive but I said this was only my opinion. That being said Clarityfiend’s solution would fix this and I will change my vote accordingly.
Vladimir.copic (
talk) 13:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with listing what they are famous for, how many ships they sunk. Same way with List of serial killers by number of victims, List of rampage killers, List of mass shootings in the United States, List of major terrorist incidents, and others of the sort. Just as the main article lists the kills, so do the list articles about it. Dream Focus 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and rename it List of U-boat commanders per Dream Focus. I share Necrothesp's objections to the first three delete votes that appear to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The mere assertion that this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR is not convincing either. If it's not possible to reach a consensus, split per Clarityfiend. Renewal6 ( talk) 13:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and split per Clarityfiend. Agree with Necrothesp re: the IDONTLIKEIT votes, and the assertion above that "'most successful commanders' only appear to be discussed as a group on uboat.com" is a baseless assertion betraying a complete lack of knowledge of the range of reliable sources on this subject in German and English. Exhaustive research and resulting books by notable submarine historians like
Jürgen Rohwer, who was a professor of history at the University of Stuttgart: Axis Submarine Successes of World War Two: German, Italian, and Japanese Submarine Successes, 1939-1945 (1999) has even more detail than this list on notable WWII U-boat commanders and their successes, as well as analysis of same. He wasn't some fanboi, he was a serious historian who obviously thought this stuff mattered. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Commander, as it appears the consensus is now to keep but alter the list, and the topic will likely expand to submariners of other nations, are you aware of sources for submariners for other navies? –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- As long as a similar article on submariners of other navies does not exist it should not be the topic of this AfD discussion.
Renewal6 (
talk) 22:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Renewal6: You misunderstand my question; look again at my nomination statement. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 23:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- A list of submarine commanders attempting to include all commanders of all navies would obviously be too extensive. You'll be free to create a similar article on American or Japanese submarine commanders, if you're able to provide reliable sources and if you're interested in a series of them by war and nation. However, as long as it does not exist we should not discuss merging or renaming this article here on the basis of it. Renewal6 ( talk) 10:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @
Renewal6: You misunderstand my question; look again at my nomination statement. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 23:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- As long as a similar article on submariners of other navies does not exist it should not be the topic of this AfD discussion.
Renewal6 (
talk) 22:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Commander, as it appears the consensus is now to keep but alter the list, and the topic will likely expand to submariners of other nations, are you aware of sources for submariners for other navies? –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 17:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and rename, total tonnage sunk is one criteria for listing, but there are others, like being a Knight’s Cross holder. — Nug ( talk) 10:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to
List of German submarine commanders. To be successful is too subjective, not a fact. The list is about German commanders.
My very best wishes (
talk) 01:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- As per the Wikipedia article on U-boats, "U-boats were naval submarines operated by Germany, particularly in the First and Second World Wars." Why should it not be explicit enough to rename it List of U-boat commanders? Renewal6 ( talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The question of whether the ranking criteria are OR needs more discussion; splitting wouldn't resolve that. Editos should also discuss whether removing the ranking, making it a mere alphabetical list, would resolve the problem as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- What I and somebody else suggested was taking out the "most successful" bit from the list (or lists). That takes care of the OR issue. The number of ships/tonnage sunk is documented. If someone did want to rank them, then letting them sort by those two columns (maybe number of patrols too?) would do the trick.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support the Clarityfiend Proposal. All "Most successful" bunk should be axed, and the list should be renamed and broken in half for the two World Wars. The lists should be ordered alphabetically by default, but use sortable tables and include details such as the date as a submarine commanders were active as such and tonnage sunk. For non-sortable columns, include submarines commanded by that individual. Let these new lists stand as examples for other submarine commander lists. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I additionally propose that awards should not be mentioned on these lists, and that they should not include the word "U-boat" in the title. That distinction should not be made because it is a tomato tomatoe situation. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Vami IV: We would stumble into
WP:OR with a mere alphabetical list, because it would suggest to the reader that all the included persons are treated equally by the sources, which is obviously not the case. Your additional proposal that awards should be removed from the list does not appear to be policy-based, but based on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Excluding "U-boat" from the title had already been suggested by My very best wishes, see above.
Renewal6 (
talk) 02:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am confused by the idea that alphabetical ordering by surname would be OR. It would be NPOV. My objection to inclusion of military awards is an objection to
WP:SIZE bloat, which tables are prone to. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 02:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- The ranking is based on facts discussed by reliable sources other than uboat.net, and it does not contain a personal opinion on the achievements of the German military. Hence, it does not violate WP:NPOV. It would be borderline OR to withhold the ranking from the reader, because the inclusion criteria for the list are directly connected to it. Otherwise, it may appear as though we present a list of 50 WW2 U-boat commanders that we arbitrarily consider to be the most notable. Objections to WP:SIZE are fine, but I think it's more reasonable to discuss them at the talk page of the article. Too many additional proposals on how to change the article just make it harder to reach a consensus on the actual topic of the AfD debate. Renewal6 ( talk) 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am confused by the idea that alphabetical ordering by surname would be OR. It would be NPOV. My objection to inclusion of military awards is an objection to
WP:SIZE bloat, which tables are prone to. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 02:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Vami IV: We would stumble into
WP:OR with a mere alphabetical list, because it would suggest to the reader that all the included persons are treated equally by the sources, which is obviously not the case. Your additional proposal that awards should be removed from the list does not appear to be policy-based, but based on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Excluding "U-boat" from the title had already been suggested by My very best wishes, see above.
Renewal6 (
talk) 02:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I additionally propose that awards should not be mentioned on these lists, and that they should not include the word "U-boat" in the title. That distinction should not be made because it is a tomato tomatoe situation. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support the Clarityfiend Proposal. All "Most successful" bunk should be axed, and the list should be renamed and broken in half for the two World Wars. The lists should be ordered alphabetically by default, but use sortable tables and include details such as the date as a submarine commanders were active as such and tonnage sunk. For non-sortable columns, include submarines commanded by that individual. Let these new lists stand as examples for other submarine commander lists. –
♠Vami
_IV†♠ 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- What I and somebody else suggested was taking out the "most successful" bit from the list (or lists). That takes care of the OR issue. The number of ships/tonnage sunk is documented. If someone did want to rank them, then letting them sort by those two columns (maybe number of patrols too?) would do the trick.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière and Otto Kretschmer are clearly referred to as the #1 U-boat commanders based on their tonnage sunk by reliable sources. Neither the ranking criteria nor the statistics they depend on are an invention of Wikipedia or uboat.net, so the list fulfills WP:NOR. Because of that, I would oppose removing the ranking itself, but support making the ships and tonnage sunk columns sortable. I agree with Clarityfiend that renaming the article by leaving out "most successful" resolves the legitimate WP:OR issues with the title format. Renewal6 ( talk) 21:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Split per Clarityfiend. This is is a SYNTH list, and combining the performance of commanders in two different wars has no basis in the sources. Probably only done because the Germans happened to call their ships "U-boats" during the both conflicts, and that's not enough. - Indy beetle ( talk) 02:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, as topic is notable, but it needs renaming Jackattack1597 ( talk) 22:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein 12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Always necessary to read through an article's history before beginning a deletion process. It was merged in 2008 with an article called "List of U-Boat Aces." Then renamed "List of Successful U-Boat Commanders," then renamed "List of Most Successful U-Boat Commanders" as the page only listed "top scorers." That answers your first question. Content-wise, rename it again if necessary, but it meets notability; this is an important piece of history and encyclopedic content. " List of U-Boat Commanders" could be good, as Renewal6 has proposed. Knightoften ( talk) 04:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- 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.