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. Sandstein 07:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Thoma (general)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Heinrich Thoma (general) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was nominated for deletion just over a year ago and closed as no consensus. Arguments for keeping at that time were mostly that Thoma satisfied WP:NSOLDIER criteria #1 and 2. NSOLDIER has since then been deprecated and is a mere essay. The relevant notability criteria are therefor now the any biography and general notability guidelines. The argument at the time that Thoma did not meet these criteria is still valid. Fellgiebel (1986), Scherzer (2007) and Von Seeman (1976) are abbreviated one-line listings and Keilig (1983) little more. Hartmann (2010) appears to have some passing mentions to Thoma in footnotes and abbreviated promotional records. Mitcham (2009) also merely lists Thoma's promotions with no attempt at context or tying Thoma to any events. Weber (2010) isn't about Thoma at all. No evidence of any signifcant coverage in reliable sources is apparent in the article or in searches, which fails both NBIO and GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 5 million Iron Crosses were awarded in WWII and over 7,300 Knight's Crosses[1]. Neither is significant and almost all the sources merely list his dates of promotion and award. None of the sources given can be called "several chapters". What's been written about him is almost entirely the bare details of his service history and most sources seem to be copying either the same primary source or each other. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ For context, the American and German militaries had about the same number of men under arms and the Medal of Honor was awarded to a mere 472 individuals
What about the five secondary sourced books? Did you check out all of those too or take them into account? Obviously meets WP:GNG without a doubt. Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally I conducted a WP:BEFORE and looked at all the references that could be accessed online, they are mere listings with nothing that addresses the topic directly and in detail. As you know I don't share your views on what does or does not meet GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Just in Hartmann's book alone he is listed 6 times in footnotes and the text, and is even quoted. The guy doesn't need a biography written about him to be notable. You like to arbitrarily applies notability guidelines, sounds like a clear case of WP:IDL, because the stack of secondary sources are there. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying the same thing as if we're all unfamiliar with it. I can't access Hartmann's book (and doubt that you've seen it either), but it would take more than a few footnotes in one book to convince me that BASIC is satisfied. If he was notable it shouldn't be difficult to find sources about him. Mztourist (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to access the book through archives.org, it does not require a subscription and is entirely free. You can choose make a free account which allows you to check out books like a library. I linked the book below in one of my comments. It is an excellent resource which even allows users to search the text of literally millions of books in a few seconds. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, how many significant secondary sources does this guy need to be considered notable. I swear editors vote without even taking the articles own sources into account. He is listed in book after book, what standard are trying to hold here? Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established by the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is not the case here and not by the fact that someone held a particular rank. A great example of this I found recently is Esteban Hotesse, a non-notable Tuskegee Airmen 2nd Lt who achieved little before dying in a plane crash in 1945, but in 2015 The Atlantic did a story about him and that essentially made him notable, common sense tells me that he shouldn't have a page, but he has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To many of us, notability is established by common sense, not rigid, unbending rules. They have no place on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it was WP:SOLDIER or a User's own criteria apparently...Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one thing I have discovered edited Wikipedia is there is a complete lack of common sense especially concerning AfDs. Someone please break down the sources listed and explain why he isn't notable. There are numerous independent published sources which attribute notability again and again. He was a divisional commander on the East Front for three years, he is listed in a stack of books independent on the matter and reliable, which are all secondary sourced. So please explain. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamesallain85:, did you actually read the nomination? Because if you had, you'd have seen that I did exactly that. They are not WP:SIGCOV by any reasonable standard. Being listed again and again is worthless if its the same repeated scraps of information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I did, I just disagree with your assessment. Are you fluent in German? It would be difficult to assess many of these sources if you weren't in this case. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fluent but I submit for the eventual closer's evaluation that fluency is not required to see that two pages and a small handful of footnotes in a thousand page tome are not evidence of significant coverage. Neither is it necessary to recognize any of the other scraps that this article is sourced to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly fluent in German and double checked my translation with a native speaker, I mentioned in another comment specifically that Hartmann p.267-268 discusses not only his role as 296th Division commander, but also his underestimation of Russian defences as a shortcoming. I think it speaks to notability as it is more than a passing mention. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because they were and are common sense in my opinion! WP:SOLDIER was blatantly common sense; its deprecation was a complete breach of common sense. I'm still mystified as to how that served Wikipedia and I always will be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well few other Users seem to share that view. Mztourist (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether one understands the reasoning or not, the discussion was well-attended and reached a community consensus. AfD is not the place to attempt overturning that consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is the place where the discussion starts. Looking how notability is applied in cases such as this is a good argument for its return. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, or perhaps it is "repeating the same argument without convincing people". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the comments here, I'm really not sure that's true! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of the many users baffled by the abolition of WP:SOLDIER. It could have possibly been tweaked, yes, but most of it was a very solid, commonsense notability guideline. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I am equally mystified by editors who claim "clear notability" based on mere position instead of actual sourcing. Claiming that an officer is notable because they were a division commander is exactly equivalent to claiming they are notable because they were a general - field grade officers did not command divisions. There were somewhere north of 600 German divisions in WWII and Hitler cycled through his general officers with abandon. That cannot be considered notable on its own by any reasonable standard. More importantly to the eventual closer, the community has recently clearly rejected the position that rank or awards or commands held grants "clear notability", as shown by the discussion linked in the nomination. Necrothesp having participated in that discussion should surely be aware of this community consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My vote on Keep based upon Thoma being a division commander was *not* equivalent to claiming they were notable because they were a general. It is based on the different between 2 and 3 stars who *did not* command a substantial formation, a division, in combat, and those who did. Also, I would also vote Keep on colonels (who I am sure did command divisions in the Wehrmacht Heer on occasion, certainly did in the Red Army, and many elsewhere, any other view is over-British/American) who had substantial time or repeated time commanding a division in combat. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Please provide a link, its odd that those pages aren't cited on the page if they're so detailed about him. Mztourist (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link, [[1]], the book linked is the most used resource, but I do find it interesting that the pages I found were not resourced, because I think they speak more to his notability than the pages listed in the article. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2021 (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.
More