- 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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hans Sandrock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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]
- Not sure about Panzers in the Sand: The History of Panzer-Regiment 5, 1935-41 (Volume 1): the author does not appear to be notable, and Stackpole could be hit or miss: they have published scholarly works such as Rommel Reconsidered or Steven Zaloga, along with memoirs/popular histories by Waffen-SS apologists, like Kurt Meyer, Willi Fey, and Hubert Meyer, and "Landzer-pulp" such as by Franz Kurowski. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- WP:Soldier states that:
"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]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Add'l comment from nom: As was suggested on my Talk page, I checked for the name in the Neue Deutsche Biographie online. I was unable to locate an entry for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 15 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.