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 No Consensus. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Roy[edit]

Rudolf Roy (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 general notability guidelines, nor WP:SOLDIER, as no citation is provided for Knight's Cross. The article has been tagged Refimprove since 2015. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Switching to a !vote. GAB^gab 01:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Delete - Here are sources on Roy that I can find: [1][2]. Bergstrom calls him "The leading 'Panzer ace' of SS-Panzerjager-Abteilung 12," and identifies him as a "seasoned [veteran]." Számvéber verifies that Roy held the Knight's Cross. However, while Roy may meet SOLDIER, he most likely does not meet GNG. Plus, SOLDIER is an essay, while GNG is policy. "Individuals [with the highest award for valour] will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify," according to SOLDIER, but this appears to be an exception to the rule. GAB^gab 18:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a classic example of an editor deleting large amounts of text and sources then nominating it for deletion. There were several sources on this article prior to their deletion by the nominator. Please check the article history for such behaviour when supporting a deletion nomination. A check of "what links here" would show that his award is fully cited on the list at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km) to Scherzer and Fellgiebel, including his rank at the time, the date of award and his position at the time of award. It is not that hard to make such checks before nominating for deletion or supporting deletion. All of this information should have been available to editors considering deletion, yet it was not, due to the deletion of significant parts of the article prior to its nomination. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment: Here's the article as of Dec 2015, after it's been tagged with "Unreliable Sources" tag. I believe that 6 months is a sufficient time to improve an article. The material in the article was cited to:
  • http://home.att.net/~SSPzHJ/RudolfRoy.html (fan page?)
  • http://www.frontkjemper.info/ (internet forum)

Roy appears in a few books, but with very short mentions, such as here: The Ardennes, 1944-1945, by Christer Bergstromsom and Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy: The Combat History of SS Panzer Regiment 12 by Norbert Számvéber. (Same books as mentioned by GeneralizationsAreBad)

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. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add: As was suggested on my Talk page, I checked for the name in the Neue Deutsche Biographie. There is no entry for the subject there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the mentions in the two linked books, plus the Knight's Cross sources are sufficient to meet the GNG test, which is not a bright line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's source is one line; pls see sample. Fellgiebel's work is a directory; this is not "significant coverage" and thus "does not constitutes evidence of notability".The other two books are brief mentions—this does not amount to "significant coverage" as I see it. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete instead at best as I still have found nothing particularly better and the article is still overall questionable at best, thus with nothing currently better, delete. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tentative. Seems marginally more notable/reliable than Paul Senghas, but again there is no german article. Aoziwe (talk) 14:38, 24 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.