Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominated for awards

WP:ANYBIO says that a person is probably notable if he/she "has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times" (emphasis mine). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Parks (author), we saw that it isn't exactly clear what this means. Does it have to be the same award, or can he/she be nominated for several awards just once each? And does two nominations count as "several"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I think the standard, accepted definition of "several" is more than two, and I've never seen a requirement that a person need be nominated for more than one, specific award category over time...just that the award be "well-known and significant", which is a higher standard than just a notable award category or award ceremony. Guy1890 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Bronze Wolf Award

Hi, there's an RfC taking part at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award that wishes to understand/decide whether the recipient of a Bronze Wolf award is automatically notable. Could interested editors provide their views please? -- HighKing++ 14:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My drafts not meeting this guideline?

I have spent my time in Draft: namespace making draft articles before any one is accepted or rejected. Even when David Pevsner is accepted to mainspace, after extensive (and exhaustive) editing at Draft:Edward Leung Yiu-ming, Draft:Robert David Sullivan (now deleted per my request due to insufficient sources), and Draft:Trent Kelly (coast guard), I wonder whether I should always follow all of the rules to expand the drafts. Draft:Robert E. Streeter is still pending; regardless, either I may have to lower my temptations to do more drafts, or.... what else can I do? After so much editing, why do those drafts fail to meet this guideline or the main notability guideline? --George Ho (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC about beauty pageants contestants

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Survey. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As a summary: There has been an ongoing effort to draft a guideline or essay about beauty pageant contestants. There is not consensus for the separate guideline, but has been discussion about adding something to WP:NPEOPLE. A recent draft, pulling the key elements from the guideline draft, is:

Beauty pageant winners
  • Winners of Big Four pageants.
  • Winners of the national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants. Certain independent national-level or supra-national pageants such as Miss America and Miss Europe, by virtue of long establishment and widespread coverage.
  • Just being winner of these beauty contests, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general primary notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

There are some people that feel that this either is not need due to WP:GNG or that it circumvents GNG.

Thanks,—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is against the proposal above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I do see that there was consensus (in the most recent of many discussions) about not having a separate guideline for beauty pageant winners - and particularly some of the language that is not in this version. I do not see that there was consensus against this proposal. The last I looked, you're the only one that objects to this specific proposal.
I wonder if it's clear that not having a guideline means that there's not a quick and easy way to resolve the many, many articles that get created by state contest winners or contestants in the big contests. And, for those that win major contents, this proposal explicitly states that the articles that are created must meet GNG.
Are you saying that you do not want a quick and easy remedy for the ones that clearly don't meet GNG, nor have won a major contest?—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You wrote: "I wonder if it's clear that not having a guideline means that there's not a quick and easy way to resolve the many, many articles that get created by state contest winners."
WP:GNG is part of Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline.
GNG stands for General Notability Guideline.
My POV is that we do have a quick and easy remedy, we can simply delete every BLP that does not meet GNG (and I think we should). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That is easier said than done. 1) The AfD process requires people to weigh in on the articles, when as you agree there is a shortage of people weighing in on those discussions and often the people that weigh in are the ones that want state contestants and winners to have articles, and 2) in my opinion, this would make it clearer for people working the NewPages Feeds and other new pages so that they could be deleted right after creation without having to go through the time-consuming AfD process. Why is this guideline that still requires GNG and would be of benefit an issue? I would like to hear what others have to say, so I will withhold my comments from this point forward.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability and Famous residents/people sections of articles?

Hi, just wondering if the guidelines for notability are also applied to lists of famous residents or people in articles on towns, cities, etc.? -Yupik (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I always apply WP:WTAF. Strictly speaking, non-notable entities can be listed in an article but this usually leads to a mess. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, every person in such a section should have a reliable source supporting her/his inclusion, especially if the person is living (per WP:BLP). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
My personal rule of thumb is that the person should have an article. Exceptions may be made for very small towns where the list is quite short (but in that case you do need to put in a ref) and for very large cities, where even people with articles might be excluded if they're not that notable (although in those cases there's a separate article just for the list, which makes list size less of a problem).
I've never seen this written down -- that having a bluelink is the operative criteria -- but I have seen editors enforce it as a de facto thing, and have done so myself. Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The WP:LISTPEOPLE says 1) meets the Wikipedia notability requirement and 2) membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. And that there are some lists that may have stricter requirements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Great convo about this, thanks! -Yupik (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NACTOR as it applies to twins?

Context: There's a discussion on whether to split Dylan and Cole Sprouse, twins who have had mostly connected (though not all shared (i.e. playing the same person)) roles. Cole has recently taken on a new television project separate from Dylan, and a film starring Dylan separate from Cole is in some sort of phase of production. I previously opposed (before the discussion got stale for six months) but now am waffling for the moment--at which point the subject of this section popped into my head. (I'm not sure the question will necessarily being integral or not to the discussion at this point (so I guess in some ways, this is a hypothetical more than anything), but it'd be nice to know in case it is relevant going forward.)

The question: If twins share an article due to being cast mostly in shared/connected roles and/or treated as a unit in reliable sources about those roles and then start taking on separate projects, do the body of work/projects they were in as a unit "count" toward the "significant roles in multiple notable" works criterion/guideline in determining their notability independent of each other? Or only the projects they've taken on individually/separate from each other? - Purplewowies (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeking a broader input relating to state leaders

I'm trying to get input from uninvolved editors in this discussion and it has been suggested it my come under the scope of this project. If not any suggestions of more appropriate projects would be welcome. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Related discussion

There is a discussion pertaining to WP:BIO1E at WP:Village pump (policy)#Clarifications about WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E and terror attacks. Thanks, ansh666 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Exception to WP:1E

WP:SNOW consensus to oppose creating an explicit exception or a stand-alone notability criterion for people who have/had the privy to be fathers/parents of U.S. presidents (or fathers/parents of any heads of state).In terms of WP policies it flatly violates WP:BIOFAMILY and further, WP isn't supposed to be some Presidential family history/archive site.Overall, it's better that the community tackles the issue on a page-by-page basis--going specifically through the requirements set out in WP:GNG etc rather than creating undue exceptions for them, solely in light of the position held by his/her son.Winged Blades Godric 13:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background Based on the outcome and commentary in these two AfD discussions ([1] and [2]) there appears to be a rough consensus that WP:1E does not apply to at least the fathers of US Presidents. As I am reading things this exemption still requires in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, but effectively sets aside the 1E exception to GNG/ANYBIO for parents (or at least fathers) of US Presidents even if their relationship to their son is their only claim to notability. For clarification I have always accepted that some parents of presidents or other leaders would be notable either for something independent of their child's place in history or because they are part of some sort of hereditary system of government, dynastic rule etc.

Question How far does this exemption extend? Does it apply to both parents? Does it apply only to US presidents or does it extend to the parents of other heads of state/government, again assuming there is RS coverage of the subject? The potential extent of this exception to 1E is considerable, and at least one editor in the most recent AfD responded to this question by asserting it should only apply to the parents of US Presidents. I think this is a subject where some clarification is needed in order to head off other potential debates at AfD or elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

General Discussion

  • Comment For the record, I'm opposed on principle to the exception. But unless the two AfD's linked above are aberrations there seems to be a consensus in favor of at least some sort of exception and I'd like to know how far it extends. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment IMO it extends nowhere. Ford's biological father is the rare exception to a sound principle. Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
From your keyboard to God's inbox. Unfortunately the comments in the two AfDs make it clear that many, maybe most of the participating editors take a much broader view. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of 'not inherited' is that a connection to a notable person is not a sufficient reason to establish notability, there also must be sufficient sources to write a decent article. That rule does not preclude people who have probably only been written about because of a close connection to 'notability'. If it did, many first ladies, some members of the UK royal family etc. have done little or nothing of significance in their own right, but have nonetheless been written about extensively. On reflection, I think K.e.coffman is right, there were enough sources to justify the 'Ford's dad' article, even though the only reason people wrote about him was probably because of Ford. I think any change to the guideline would be difficult to define (Why dads? Why US presidents?) and needlessly complicating. Pincrete (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I don't believe that we are dealing with the exception here; the article demonstrated that the subject met GNG, the article was kept not because the subject was a father of a president, but because there were enough sources about the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not NOTINHERITED which is only peripheral to the discussion. It is WP:1E which is an exception to normal ANYBIO criteria. People can garner a lot of coverage for a single event, but 1E says that such individuals may not always be notable and often it is the event which should be covered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In any case, I oppose creating an explicit exception or an SNG for fathers of U.S. presidents (or fathers of any heads of state). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As somebody already said, why (only) dads and why US presidents? That objection aside, if the only claim for notability of a person if being the father/mother of some better known person (and the only coverage about them is either that or trivial stuff), then no that person fails GNG because of WP:NOTINHERITED, and thus is not notable enough to be included. Seeing the arguments of the AFDs, what comes up often is exactly that - they're fathers of US presidents and their relation makes them notable (which is clearly refuted in WP:BIOFAMILY). So, a blanket exception simply because somebody is the parent of a US president (again, why US presidents only???) would be a gross misinterpretation of policy. Now some people in those discussions bring up the argument of whether we should WP:IGNORE all rules in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, thus the argument is that "not including that content does not help in making Wikipedia better". My opinion on that is that when the parent of some well known person has a relevant claim for individual recognition, then yes an article is warranted, per standard WP policy. If the only (or main) claim of notability of such a person is being the parent of a US president (or whatever other political personality), then suitable content can be put in an article about the person's family (ex. Family of Barack Obama), or, failing that, a short mention can be made directly in the biography article. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, wikipedia is not usapedia or uspresidentpedia, if appropriate sources are not available, then a standalone article is not appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned by bot. I believe that, like all persons, parents of presidents must meet GNG and there should be no exceptions. I'm not surprised to hear that AfDs ignored this principle, as AfDs frequently flout the guidelines. We should not be ratifying or expanding bad decisions at AfDs. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose exemptions this isn't supposed to be a President family history site. People need to meet the WP:GNG AND the WP:ANYBIO requirements no matter who they are to warrant an article. Letting someone have their own article simply because they're related to a president (including parents) is a blatant violation of WP:BIOFAMILY and honestly is flat out ridiculous. Many editors sadly apply far too lenient standards in "keep" votes during AFD discussions. It doesn't mean we should repeat their mistakes. I fully agree with the IP's comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Exemptions Summoned by Legobot. Remembering the Mary Anne MacLeod AfD, parents of presidents do count as notable, and often their is plenty of material to be found due to their child's position. The wealth of new sources allows for a very well researched and sourced article. And as for not being USApedia, this is the en.wiki, and NPOL allows for plenty of politicians from around the world who are less notable than a presidents parent. In response to Coolabahapple, being the parent, planty of RS will be produced, that is not endemic o this rule. Notability is. Before a bunch of sources came to light, they would at least get a stub article with DOB DOD, place of birth, etc. L3X1 (distant write) 13:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No exception is needed or justified, particularly if based on a flawed deletion discussion where "plenty of precedent" was claimed for keeping such articles, but the linked page does not mention parents, of anybody, at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the afds showed, the community is willing to use IAR when it is makes sense to do so. It's absurd to have exceptions to major widely used rules that would apply only to very few articles--that's why we have IAR. DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
DGG I thought IAR was a humerous essay, and a minefield that would sink one's wiki-career if invoked. So it's actually of some use? L3X1 (distant write) 00:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It can be used whenever there is sufficient consensus to do so. Such consensus will in practice never be obtained for anything that violates WP's basic principles, but it can be obtained for making an exception if there is sufficient consensus to do so. Anyone who raises the possibility is expected to explain just why it is appropriate, and is likely to have a skeptical audience unless the necessity is obvious.
WP policy and guideline are not handed down to us from above: there is no separate legislative body or dictator (outside of a few legal requirements from the WMF, such as copyright). We make the rules; we decide on their interpretation; we make the exceptions. In particular, all guidelines intrinsically allow for exceptions; WP:N is a guideline, and in addition it goes out of its way to explain at the top that there can be exceptions in both directions: meeting the specifics does not guarantee an article, nor does failing them necessarily prevent one, though it usually does. This would indeed be a prescription for chaos if there were no fundamental agreed principle, but we are all here to make an encyclopedia. And those who are here for other reasons--such as advertising or playing games, or abuse, or disruption--are removed. We are not an anarchy--there are limits, more or less firm depending on the circumstances, and they can only be learned by observation and participation. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on the notability of flying aces

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC on the notability of flying aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines per profession

People are telling me that articles that meet something like WP:ENT must also pass the general notability guideline. If that is the case, I don't see the reasoning for having anything beyond the general notability guideline. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason we have profession specific guidelines, is that they are useful in assessing whether the subject would pass WP:GNG, and a strong indication of the result if an in-depth search were made. Passing a profession specific guideline gives the presumption that the subject will pass a GNG test. However, in contentious cases, if it can be shown that GNG gives a different indication than the profession specific guideline, GNG should generally be followed. i.e. if a person fails WP:ENT but passes WP:GNG, then the article should be kept, but if a person passes WP:ENT but fails WP:GNG, then the article should be removed. LK (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This is incorrect. GNGs and SNGs were originally parallel: one or the other. Then, it became "I don't care if it fails the SNG, it passes the GNG!" and then it evolved to "It must pass BOTH GNG and SNG" and now to "SNGs only exist to sort of gauge whether a topic will pass GNG or not". Not to fault Lawrencekhoo for getting it wrong, but things have evolved rather fluidly over Wikipedia's history. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and the guidelines themselves are a dog's breakfeast of contradictions. WP:N itself says in the lede "A topic is presumed to merit an article if... 1)It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (the box on the right is NSPORTS and NPROF and NBOOK and all the rest). WP:SPORTS says in bold at the beginning "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." And so on.
But there are plenty of places to look if you want quotes that say the opposite. The fact is, these pages were cobbled together over the years, and none of them are supposed to be pored over like scriptures or parsed like laws, trying to figure out what some long-retired editor meant ten years ago when she wrote "may" instead of "can" in some rule.
Just do what you think is best for the project.
IMO there's a sea change of people starting to consider GNG on more absolute terms, as if it was a core policy that must be followed, like it or not, even if it means a bad outcome. I'm not a big fan of this, but neither am I sure it's a bad thing. Who knows? Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
With apologies to Churchill, The GNG is the worst possible way to determine whether verifiable topics should have their own articles... except for all the others that have been tried. It's a blunt tool, not fit for nuanced work, but there's nothing better out there, any any attempt at revision would open the mother of all cans of worms. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly a good starting point, and a reasonable guideline. I was just looking at fungi. Austropeltum has two references: One is an article in Botanica Acta, one is (probably) a short bare description in Dictionary of the Fungi. There may literally be no other sources. Only the Botanica Acta source is "in depth", so GNG's "multiple" sources is not satisfied. And it's a primary source, so it's no good anyway for establishing notability. And Botanica Acta doesn't even have an article here, so it's extremely obscure, more obscure than a local paper like the Lowell Sun. It is probably read by many fewer people that Popteen or whatever. Not one newspaper, even a local one, has apparently deigned to write even a short article, even a paragraph in an article, about Austropeltum.
There's really no way this article meets WP:GNG. Should it be deleted? Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I have always looked at it as "GNG and/or SNG", but it's true that you see people insisting on GNG at all times more often these days. I remember something about ensuring that coverage of certain topics was "complete" (i.e. all historical members of a legislature, all described species), but can't seem to see that anywhere. On the specific case, I can't seem to see an SNG for taxonomy, which seems odd. There are some suggestions on WP:TOL, but I wouldn't expect an article for an entire (valid) genus to be deleted no matter how scarce the sources. It's a bit of an WP:IAR situation (and that's something you don't see as much anymore too).
My suspicion is that the hostility towards SNGs comes down to a long-standing issue: that they almost always seem overly inclusive to people who don't edit in that subject area. Running my eye down WP:ATHLETE, for example, I can scarcely believe how lenient it seems, and yet I'm sure WP:POLITICIAN seems the same way to non-politics editors whereas to me it seems quite strict. The whole concept also appears to be under quite significant discussion in the RfC linked in the section below. Frickeg (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually Herostratus that is a misreading of NSPORT. What that sentence is intending is that if you are going to claim something meets NSPORTS you need a source showing they meet that criteria. If you read further in that section it actually indicates that GNG trumps NSPORT and that if its called into question that GNG might not actually be met that it can be deleted. NSPORTS actually has an FAQ to stop people from assuming that NSPORTS is equivalent to GNG. Its a common misconception. SNGs are only meant as a reprieve until such time as someone can go and get the sources that almost guaranteed exist in places like newspaper archives etc. -DJSasso (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Everyone has their own preferred fields of interest, and we can only make a cooperative encyclopedia by tolerating each other. That's essentially why I tend to be an inclusionist: simple mutual tolerance. . When I came , I was under the delusion that the GNG was the great equalizer, butI learned it is just the opposite. It favors to a degree that verges on insanity those subjects covered extensively in popular media. We avoid looking really stupid in both directions by simply interpreting the GNG to fit the circumstances. The obvious short term way out of the current sophistry and quibbling at AfD is subject specific guidelines. (We don't have them, because everyone is afraid their own topic would be short-canged, while in the current situation if they are clever enough in constructing the right kind of arguments, and only their friends show up, at least a random selection of what they like will get into WP)
But more generally, WP suffers from the google-influence: subjects rank high there only if they are in article titles. This has in practice discouraged the more widespread construction of combination articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
There is another way that we could take to deal with the systematic bias some topic areas get compared to others, and that is the fact there is nothing that prevents Wikiprojects or other pages to restrict when standalone articles can be created on some topics. That is, if we known a certain topic area has exceedingly wide coverage but where a point that there is a potential that much of that coverage is routine or not unexpected, there is nothing that says we can't have an SNG be more strict than a GNG. The GNG is a necessary condition to have a standalone article but it does not require one. But for this to work, there needs to be vast agreement across other related topic areas that these limits are reasonably balanced to have roughly "equal" requirements for all topic ares related to that. (Case in point is that there would need to be alot of agrument how to scale back NSPORTS to make other professions appear more balanced, but that's a long uphill battle). The GNG works to at least define a minimum amount of coverage for topics that aren't regularly well covered but it does not realistically handle when one can trip over references left and right, and instead becomes more of how we avoid IINFO and other factors of WP:NOT. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on red links for persons

Regarding WP:REDLINK, there is an RfC about red links for persons. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO Award Rule of Thumb?

As a rule of thumb, exactly which awards are considered to be "well-known and significant industry award[s]" for the purposes of meeting WP:PORNBIO? - GretLomborg (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My wild guess... does the award have it's own Wikipedia page? Ie Wikinotable. Legacypac (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
What I got from the above discussion was that was explicitly not the case. The impression I got from that is that there is a pretty strong consensus that the valid awards are a pretty small set containing AVN, XBIZ, and maybe one or two others. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not an area I spend any time in. Sorry I threw out a suggestion that proved wrong. Porn bios suck, and if I were you I'd find something else less controversial and icky to work with. I wrote large portions of ISIL and created several associated pages. Much less toxic topic overall. Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In order to meet the PORNBIO inclusion criteria, a subject must have won an adult film industry award from an award ceremony that is "well-known" (it at least has to have its own Wikipedia page describing the award ceremony) within that industry and is also in a "significant" (or major) award category. Not all adult film industry award ceremonies (or award categories within those ceremonies) meet the PORNBIO criteria. Guy1890 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of "represented"

WP:CREATIVE tells us that sufficient (though unnecessary) evidence of notability for "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals" is that

The person's work (or works) . . . is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In a current AfD discussion, an editor says that in the above

"represented" doesn't mean "sitting in a basement drawer." I'm saying that it means "on display."

Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The quoted editor went on to say "Obviously pieces get rotated in and out, and obviously notability is not temporary ..." From the conversation, the editor does seem to understand that very few museums actually display all of their collection all of the time.
For an object, the point seems reasonable: to be notable, the person's work should have been displayed at some time; presumably display on the web would be sufficient, not necessarily physical display. But WP:CREATIVE is also about authors, economists, etc.; for galleries or museums, substitute libraries; is it required that an author's work has been on display, or is "sitting on a shelf" sufficient? — Stanning (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not think WP:CREATIVE's wording should be extended here. It says galleries or museums, not libraries, which is good because many major libraries aim for completeness rather than judging their collections on significance - being on display in a significant art gallery is not really equivalent to sitting on the shelf of a vast reading room. Being represented in a really huge library's collection (the Library of Congress or really any major national library) is not a particularly helpful indicator of notability. Libraries of course don't do "display" of books or things quite so much, and in any case anything that they did display would certainly fly through other notability criteria without needing to turn to this one. Frickeg (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's put aside economists and other authors for now, and concentrate on photographers and perhaps other visual artists. In particular, photographic portraitists. The art world seems to have been radically changed in recent decades by (often international) exhibitions. If museum X has a portrait of the rather obscure figure P done by the rather obscure photographer Q and isn't known to have exhibited it but verifiably did lend it out for exhibition at museum Y, then which of the following is (are) true?
1. Possession of a print by X counts toward the notability of P.
2. Possession of a print by X counts toward the notability of Q.
3. Exhibition of a print by Y counts toward the notability of P.
4. Exhibition of a print by Y counts toward the notability of Q.
For the question of notability of P versus notability of Q, we might look at the titles of (imagined) exhibitions. "Wet Collodion Portraitists": it's Q. "Early Atlanta": it's probably P, but even in material about historical worthies (and not primarily about the photographs or photographers thereof) one often sees such phrasing as "this remarkably skillful portrait", suggesting notability of Q. If "be represented" is taken to mean "be exhibited (at least from time to time)", then I think questions like this are likely to come up, as well as complaints along the lines of "You mean, as far as you know it was only exhibited for one week?" -- Hoary (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Notability in Wikipedia does not operate on the principles of deductive, analytical logic. It's entirely inductive, as far as I can see. It's all based on repetitive instances of recognition in the press (or galleries and collections in this case), leading to an inductive conclusion that is more or less "yes, they look notable". If it was based on deductive logic we would not need to discuss things much. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion in a permanent collection is a decision by a curator that is very analogous to the decisions made by print or news editors. Curators of major museums are highly educated individuals, and in line with WP:NOR, we defer to their judgement to establish notability. Represented in this case refers only to being included in the collection. To suggest that it has to be displayed is, a position that is ignorant of the permanent collection process. Here's an L.A. Times article that discusses the new Broad Museum in Los Angeles. It has a special staircase area where you can peer into the permanent collection that is stored between the floors. As the article (and, for god's sake, about thousand other extant sources) say(s), "At nearly all museums, the treasures on public display are but a small fraction of the riches within. Gallery space being limited, priceless paintings and rare sculptures are consigned to basements or off-site storage much of the time." Once you understand that this is the case in every permanent collection in the world, you understand that this discussion about the difference between represented and included is a silly in the extreme. To extend this silliness, museums do not generally make available the database of a the exhibitions or of a painting or sculpture since it has been in the collection. Thus, if you really want to say if something is notable only if in the collection and exhibited, there is not going to be an effective, reliable and easy way to find this out.104.163.142.4 (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
A few examples:
-The collection "is only a mere fraction of its total holdings; most works sit in storage or reside offsite in a traveling exhibition"[1]
-"It is simply not possible to display more than a fraction of our collections within the space allotted to this Department:[2]
-"But while the piece is now part of the permanent collection, it remains in storage."[3]
-"The largest museums typically display about 5% of their collection at any time."
-"In major museums around the world, some truly great works of art are hidden away from public view. What are they – and why can’t we see them?"
-"“Most museums show between 2 and 4 percent of a collection,” Ms. Davis said."
-"Roughly 80,000 objects are on public display at the British Museum in Bloomsbury at any one time. This is 1% of the collection..." 104.163.142.4 (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Colin Gilbert; Dylan Gilbert; Elizabeth T. Gilbert (1 October 2009). The Daily Book of Art: 365 readings that teach, inspire & entertain. Walter Foster. pp. 23–. ISBN 978-1-60058-131-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Ellen Easton McLeod (20 December 1999). In Good Hands: The Women of the Canadian Handicrafts Guild. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. pp. 291–. ISBN 978-0-88629-356-7.
  3. ^ Harriet Baskas (1 October 2013). Hidden Treasures: What Museums Can't or Won't Show You. Globe Pequot Press. pp. 86–. ISBN 978-1-4930-0161-3.

Notability criteria

I have never proposed any article for deletion. I was just preparing to set in motion my very first AfD nomination, but in the end held back. The article in question is Christian Guzman. I think he fails the notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"; I can't find information on him in mainstream media or in books, but he is all over the place on YouTube, Instagram and similar sites. He has 740,000 subscribers to the former and nearly a million followers at the latter. Bodybuilding.com has an interview with him, but I doubt they are a reliable source, and I wonder how they choose their interviewees. He has started a company but it does not seem to pass the notability criteria either. However, I wonder whether his large following on YouTube, Instagram etc. means that he has achieved notability by public consent, a people's icon so to speak. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested

Please see the following discussion: WP:VPPOL#RfC: Should "Sir" and "Dame" be treated as pre-nominals? –Sb2001 talk page 18:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles

Background

I've recently went through the experience of nominating several articles for AfD, which resulted in interesting discussions, with the possibility that an RfC may be recommended to deal with this issue on a global basis:

The issue appears to be complex, so I would appreciate further input from the community, as there are over 3,000 articles on Knight's Cross holders, and a substantial amount of them fail GNG. Clarification: The award can indeed by verified, but no other RS coverage appears to be available.

Sample articles:

I reached out to both, but did not hear back, except from DocYakoo on an AfD: response

The results of the AfDs were mixed, but some good discussion points within:

Here are some points that would be relevant:

  • 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."

More policies are discussed on this link: KC holder suggested RfC

I would really appreciate some help in framing the discussion and formulating an RfC if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:SOLDIER also says "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour". Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross meets the criteria, so all awardees are presumed notable. GNG should not matter in these cases. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, I am aware of WP:Soldier; it 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 notability is presumed, it's not guaranteed. WP:Soldier does not trump GNG, as I understand it, and "significant coverage in reliable sources" still matters.
The RS for these subjects do not appear to exist; some of the articles that were part of my AfDs came from the list of the article Panzer aces, and the coverage for them was indeed available, but in the non-RS Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS romancer literature, such as by Franz Kurowski or Gordon Williamson (writer). Please see Waffen-SS in popular culture for other similar writers.
The coverage (whether RS or not) does not appear to exist at all for the articles in the Sample list. The articles that I've listed above were created in 2008 (Jim Sweeny) and 2012 (DocYaco) and have not been enhanced since. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
You state that coverage does not appear to exist for these articles. However, this medal was only awarded between 1939 and 1945, I think, so most contemporary sources would likely be published by Nazi newspapers and publishers in German. Most of these are unlikely to be on-line and translated to English. When you say that there are no reliable sources, have you made a serious attempt to find off-line German language sources? If not, I believe that we should presume such sources likely exist. (Note that WP:V still applies - the medal must be verifiable, and if there's insufficient info to write an article, redirect to a list is certainly acceptable.) Pburka (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The only RS source in the articles is the one that verifies that the award was indeed bestowed. That is not in dispute. But this does not amount to "significant coverage" since each recipient only gets a line in the source. Please see: sample from Fellgiebel.
"Off-line German language sources" are not available to me -- both physically and linguistically. I assume that would be true for most English wiki editors. Contemporaneous sources published between 1939 and 1945 would be highly unreliable, having been produced under the totalitarian regime. I expect they would not be of any use, unless covered by reliable secondary sources as part of WWII historiography. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Contemporaneous sources are extremely reliable. German sources are fine, per WP:NONENG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not following -- how would 1939-45 sources be reliable? We don't use them for example to source articles on WWII battles. Also to clarify, I'm not arguing against German language sources; my point is that none have been added in eight years, so it's unrealistic to expect that they would be in foreseeable future. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The point about "presumed notability" is that certain things cause a subject to be of sufficient interest to the general public that there will be significant coverage, and sufficient sources to write an article will almost certainly exist. WP:SOLDIER does not trump WP:GNG; it merely says that experience has shown that WP:GNG will be met. Now, for example, in The class the stars fell on, the class itself is notable, although not all West Point classes are, and all the generals in the class are presumed notable under WP:SOLDIER and are therefore included in the list under WP:LISTPEOPLE. (To test this, we selected two at random, and were easily able to create articles on them.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that an award of a single Knight's Cross does not "cause a subject to be of sufficient interest to the general public that there will be significant coverage", as the AfDs above demonstrated. Even though some articles survived the AfD process, no RS citations have been added to any of the articles. This tells me that either (a) RS sources do not exist on these subjects; (b) there's no interest in the Wiki community to search for and add them; or (c) both. Perhaps WP:Soldier needs to be adjusted? My experience with these articles demonstrated that it's much more likely to see coverage for a divisional commander in the German army, rather than a person who had been awarded a Knight's Cross, and even the higher grade, the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves.
As I mentioned, most of these articles came off the list of German "panzer aces", in which there continues to be an interest. For example, please see this copyvio revert from today in Kurt Knispel, who is supposed to be the top scoring "tank ace" of all times, but even for him, significant RS coverage does not appear to exist.
As an aside, here's the Panzer ace article before I and others edited it: Nov 2015 version. It appears to have been sourced to the ubiquitous Franz Kurowski, as his work was the only one listed in References: * Kurowski, Franz (2004). Panzer Aces: German Tank Commanders in World War II. Verlag Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-3173-7 K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:IMPATIENT: Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline. The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
It has been eight years for some of these articles, so it's a fair assumption that no sources would be forthcoming in the future. I follow a different philosophy that there is indeed a deadline: WP:NOW -- why not correct the problem now? These articles have been tagged refimprove since as early as 2009. I made a similar comment to editor PeaceMaker (who objected to my nominations): "My involvement with these articles has been on-going since I came across them via the German panzer aces list. I've taken several passes at the articles to remove dubious, unsourced and unreliably sourced material, and I've not seen attempts from other editors to improve the articles. This suggests to me that the wikipedia community is not overly concerned about having these articles as part of its body of knowledge." (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is an example of an article for an airman who had two aerial victories and never received a high award for valour: Graham Leggett. The article references two non-RS websites; I chose it randomly from a list of Battle of Britain pilots. I doubt anyone would nominate that article for deletion. The argument here is that Germans are more likely to be included in Wikipedia despite a lack of reliable sources. But "reliable source" does not mean "infallible source," and a person does not become non-notable because they are only mentioned in potentially unreliable sources. That is, the source could be wrong on minor details, but that doesn't mean the person didn't exist or wasn't awarded a Knight's Cross. Unlike "fancruft", which is about fictional works, these articles are about real people, and it would be a disservice to Wikipedia if they were deleted.Roches (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It absolutely does matter. Articles require reliable sources, that is, those which are editorially controlled and fact checked. Any article for which substantial reliable referencing doesn't exist (note, this doesn't mean the sources must be currently cited, just that they must be out there) should be deleted or merged to a parent article. Interest doesn't matter, "It's a..." doesn't matter. SNGs are useful guides as to when substantial sourcing is likely to exist, but it still must, in every individual case, in fact exist. If it turns out an SNG covers a lot of cases where substantial reliable references don't exist, the SNG is erroneous and should be adjusted or removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not so, not in the least. You're imaging the GNG to be policy, whereas its a guideline that says right at the top that it is not the only possible criterion. The GNG is just a guideline, and we can have other guidelines also. The relationship between the GNG and the SNGs can be whatever we decide by consensus. The clearest two examples are the rules for natural geographic features, where above a certain level if we have more than just a name on a map, they are always notable, and WP:PROF, which explicitly and by firm consensus states that it is alternative to the GNG. Similarly, we include early players in the Olympics on such as basis. We make the rules. We are not constrained to follow the GNG unless we have consensus to do so--this consensus cannot be assumed. There is no higher body handing down the rules to us , and just letting us tinker with the details. We have made every guideline here by consensus, and it means what it is take to mean by the community, as shown in the case of notability , by practice at afds.
I think its firmly established that the highest award for valour is always notable, as long as we have a RS for the award to meet WP:V,Decisions in the other direction are aberrant--there is always a certain amount of error--, and the thing to do is to rewrite the articles.
Alternatively, it can be viewed as a compromise: we have had considerable trouble on holding the line for people whose notability is a n award lower than the highest, and since in this case there's a firmly defined line, it makes for a good compromise. Personally, I thing the highest award guideline is sometimes a little less than ideal, for example with some early holder of the VC and the Medal of Honor, and it might well be for other countries also (I have the Soviet Union in mind, much more than Germany). But it is still better to have the compromise and devote our time to writing better articles, not worrying about just which ones to accept. Too many AfDs end up with a detailed examination of sources--and depending on how we want to interpret the wording in the GNG, can in any borderline or ambiguous case give whichever result one wants. Far better to have a predictable guideline in fields where one can be established. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The French Legion of Honour has been awarded about 1 million times since its creation (by Napoleon) - and has currently about 95000 living members. Following the argument by User:DGG above all those million should be considered inherently notable and their articles if ever created should not be deleted. I think this is seriously problematic. Arnoutf (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The French Legion of Honor is an award with multiple levels. Only the highest level counts. (and most of these are civilian, not military awards) For military valour, according to our article, the highest award in the Légion d'honneur rule à titre militaire) is awarded jointly with a Mention in Dispatches. "It is rarely awarded, mainly to soldiers who have died in battle." This indicates the importance of what I said earlier, that we need to discriminate and count only the very highest level. (I cannot find a count, but the 2nd highest honour, has been awarded only 1061 times. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Arnoutf I agree with DGG. My understanding is that, in order to be considered to have been awarded to military personnel for bravery/valour, the French Legion of Honour must be awarded concurrently with a mention in dispatches. That would drastically reduce the number who would meet SOLDIER, assuming that the figure of 1 million is even accurate (while we don't use WP as a source, the current article for the Legion of Honour mentions less than 100K awards, not 1 million...). From that figure, all of the awards to French and non-French civilians can be discounted, as can those to French military personnel for long service. Raw figures of this type distort things considerably, and are almost useless in this discussion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Minor comment. If you read the text of the article, there is indeed a limit of 100K Legion of Honour awardees - at any moment in time - which means that no more than that number of awardees can be alive at any moment. If you read a bit further and in other sources you will find that right now there are about 95K living awardees of the LH. So the numbering is a bit off. Arnoutf (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As was discussed elsewhere in the thread, the KC was awarded for other things besides valour, so only those who received the award for valour would qualify under SOLDIER1. But it's not discernable from readily available sources which recipients got it for valour and which for distinguished service. Nazi Germany itself did not make the distinction apparent. Hence the dilemma: more than KCs 7000 were awarded, resulting in the award being much more common than, for example, MoH or VC, which were awards only for valour. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of a presumption of notability that it is up to those claiming non-notability to prove their case? The whole point of the rule is that there are probably reliable sources, but that they may not exist online at the moment. The question then becomes: is this true for this particular award? Should the whole guideline be refined a bit more? john k (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

  • There are a few issues to deal with here. One, there are several classes of this award, and the actual "highest class" only ever had one recipient - Adolf Hitler. Therefore, there is an argument that could be made that no one else ever received "the highest award" and thus cannot meet GNG by receiving it. Two, according to the KC article, there were 7,161 awards of this decoration in six years. That's four times as many in that period as there have ever been for the VC, and twice as many as there have ever been for the US MOH. Those awards are also not multi-classed; the "lower class" is a totally different award that does not confer GNG via reception. So I think that the class of the award as well as the rarity of presentation certainly needs to be taken into consideration for determining notability. Recipients of the KC often have no other sourcing for them other than their KC citation, which is not saying much when we compare it to the sources we have on VC/MOH recipients. Therefore, there's a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it doesn't seem to be prestigious enough to merit inclusion based solely on receiving it. MSJapan (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:Soldier should be adjusted specific to the Knight's Cross? I do not see that "experience has shown that WP:GNG will be met". As the AfDs have demonstrated, "significant coverage" on these subjects appears not to exist, or it has not made itself apparent in eight years.
Then the question may become:
  1. Does the award of a single Ritterkreuz in any way meet the bar for WP:SOLDER#1 and/or WP:ANYBIO#1? If not, is the Ritterkreuz with Oak Leaves (ie: second award ~860 recipients) sufficient?

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have suggested elsewhere that SOLDIER should be adjusted (or a note made) regarding the Knight's Cross because of the confusion it causes. First though, I disagree at a philosophical level with the deletion of many these articles, despite the claim that they do not meet GNG. The only way to determine that would be to conduct a search of off-line sources in German. Contemporary and later accounts in newspapers, for example (including obituaries), may well hold sufficient information to justify these articles under GNG. But we have a serious systemic bias towards English language sources on en WP, and many would not know how to locate such sources in German. A similar situation would apply to Heroes of the Soviet Union or recipients of the Yugoslav Order of the People's Hero. A Google Books search is a very blunt instrument, especially for subjects whose mother tongue was not English. Secondly, the Knight's Cross was awarded for several things, including for valour, for military leadership, and for reaching a certain number of kills for fighter aces and submarine captains etc. A lot of colonels and generals were awarded it for leadership, rarely for valour. Only Knight's Crosses or higher levels of the award awarded for valour would meet SOLDIER, and that is a small subset of the total. Thirdly, the Knight's Cross was the highest award available to a soldier who did not already have one. You could not be awarded the Oak Leaves without being awarded the Knight's Cross for an earlier separate action, and so on. There was no way of being awarded the Diamonds for a single action unless you had already been awarded all the lower levels for separate actions. So, despite claims that only Diamonds recipients are "really" the highest level, that just is not the case. If a soldier was awarded the Diamonds and all the previous levels for valour in each case, that would mean that they had been awarded the highest award for valour available to them on multiple occasions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Should this work (locating sources) has been done prior to creating an article though? WP:Notability states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It looks to me that a mention in Fellgiebel (please see sample above) is a "trivial mention".
I've left messages for the two editors who created the bulk of the articles under discussion, and they have not responded, even though editor DocYako has edited today. There are probably hundreds of these articles, for example, those included in this List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS. So this is a systemic issue which was created by mostly two editors. I do not know their motivation. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I don't know when they were created or by whom, or what policies or guidelines existed when they did that. Things on en WP change over time, policies have been adjusted, guidelines written and essays like SOLDIER developed and tweaked. SOLDIER makes presumptions about military people that are likely to be notable, and it doesn't trump GNG. That doesn't mean you have to run down all these articles and PROD them either. Where the award was for valour, I would be giving the subjects of these articles the benefit of the doubt. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
How would one know whether the KC was given for "valour" ("extreme battlefield bravery") vs "successful military leadership"? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I expect there was a citation which explained the award, and the lower the rank, the less likely it was awarded for anything other than valour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly contentious, so neither automatically keeping nor automatically deleting these articles seems appropriate. The award of such a top medal ought to be a factor contributing notability, but needs to be corroborated by sources detailing the heroism or other notable deeds of the medal holder. Before requesting WP:AFD, the article creator and other significant contributors ought to be invited to provide additional evidence of notability if needed and text should not be unilaterally deleted, but discussed at the talk page if felt to be dubious. So I propose we slow down the process of deletionism and anti-deletionism and all those involved should seek to improve the articles if they can be improved. If the article appears on de.wiki, I'm happy to contribute by translating the additional information if that helps. Cheers all. Bermicourt (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MSJapan's point that a distinction needs to be made so that the Nazi regime award winners are not all given webpages. The fact that a totalitarian state handed out 4 top award medals every day to their soldiers shouldn't surprise anyone but Wikipedia is not a directory or an index so that it shouldn't be controversial not to include this. That said, some of these people clearly are notable and I think the only way to proceed is to go on a case by case basis. Bermicourt's suggestion that we "slow down the process of [deleting]" these articles is not correct either. There is clearly a problem here and doing nothing or deliberating slowing down an already very slow process is not going to help improve Wikipedia.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting slowing down the whole process of sorting this out, if the proper validation of articles can be speeded up - great! What I was cautioning against was a hasty deletion of articles without any proper research on the assumption that none are notable. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
That would be great, if we could simultaneously slow down the hasty creation of articles before finding the references that would be necessary to sustain one, and verifying that there is in fact enough of it to write a full article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest that this may be a false dilemma. If the Knight's Cross was not the highest decoration, then there would be no no presumption of notability. I suggest that the establishment of additional levels of the award was essentially the establishment of new and higher awards. There could be two possible ways to break the horns of the dilemma. The first would be to recognize recipients of the Knight's Cross prior to the establishment of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, then the recipients of the new, higher award until the Knight's Cross with Swords was established, an so on. The alternative would be to establish another level as the "highest" level. The number of awards at the oak leaves level would appear roughly equivalent to the equivalent awards. I prefer the first as it recognizes that the standards for awards of decorations change over time. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Alois Kalss existed and was awarded a Knight's Cross. There are photos of him at the Axis History Forum. I suppose those are primary sources and unreliable, but they're photos of a person with a Knight's Cross, and the "extract from his recommendation" describes his role in the fighting at Hill 112 on 11 July 1944. There are few wartime German newspapers available in digitized form, but the Leipziger Neueste Nachtrichten is available, along with some others. Every day, the new recipients of the Knight's Cross (Neue Ritterkreuzträger) are listed on the first or second page. Recipients of the Oak Leaves are almost always front-page news (Neuer Eichenlaubträger...). The LNN gives at least this much information:
"New Oak Leaf Bearer in the Waffen-SS: The Führer has given the Oak Leaves of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross to SS-Obersturmbannführer Karl ULLRICH, commander of the SS-Panzer-Grenadier Regiment "Theodor Eicke" in the SS-Panzer Division "Totenkopf", as the 480th Soldier of the German Wehrmacht."
"New Iron Cross Holders: The Führer has given the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross to Major Heinrich IBUERMANN, commander of a Frankish armored engineer battalion, born on 6 September 1907 in Reppen..."</quote>
This is from the second page of the LNN for June 7, 1944. What I mean to achieve by stating the above is that, most likely, most German newspapers printed lists of new Knight's Cross recipients. The most reliable sources just happened to be undigitized, unsearchable and in Fraktur. Roches (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that accepting Knight's Cross holders as inherently notable actually creates a lower standard of notability for German soldiers than for British or American soldiers, since the Knight's Cross was often awarded for actions that would have resulted in a second-level decoration in Britain or the USA as opposed to the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor (if you read the circumstances, many of these men would have clearly received a DSO or DCM in Britain, not a VC - the ubiquitous Knight's Cross received by so many U-boat captains being a perfect case in point). That's why so many more were awarded. This is the problem with regarding recipients of a country's "highest" decoration as inherently notable; it favours countries that do not have a defined three-level decoration system as Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA do. Most countries, in fact, do not (hence the debate we have had as to whether the Legion d'honneur is France's highest decoration; it is and it isn't!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Knight's Cross was awarded for things other than valour, and in many of those cases the equivalent award in the British system would have been the DFC or DSO, but those awarded the Knight's Cross for valour are necessarily a subset of the total. It doesn't create a "lower standard", it is just more nuanced than the British or US systems, which had one level of one award, which was for valour only. What is needed is a closer examination of the individual award to determine if it was for valour (and therefore relevant for WP:SOLDIER). I'm all for reconsidering the notability of some Knight's Cross recipients who appear to have been awarded the Knight's Cross for "successful leadership" or on another basis more akin to a DSO or CBE. What we risk doing here is creating a systemic bias in which every lower ranking member of the German armed forces who received the Knight's Cross is given less benefit of the doubt than their equivalent in other systems. Some sort of "victor's justice" when it comes to awards, especially when you take into account the destruction of records and newspapers etc in Germany during the war. As a function of their rank, it is those of lower ranks who are much more likely to have received the Knight's Cross for valour, yet some of the discussion here would skew the system against them significantly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
They're fundamentally different awards. The British and US awards were for valor above and beyond the call of duty. In essence, the Knight's Cross (RK) was very often an award for successful fulfillment of duties. It also had prerequisite rewards (both grades of Iron Cross, EK1 and EK2), which the US and British awards did not. Sometimes the awards were concurrent, as for Gustav Altmann who received the award for capturing Fort Eben-Emael in May 1940. The difference in the awards might be illustrated by the Medal of Honor awarded for D-Day; the American command decided only one would be given for actions that day, and it was given to Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., who personally led troops on the beaches, not to Eisenhower.
The Germans did not make a distinction, at all, as to what the RK was given for. It was the highest award for military service, period. The newspaper accounts don't seem to say much about new RKs or new Oak Leaves, just names and dates and places of birth. The articles on the Swords (I haven't found one on Diamonds yet) are longer. There seems to have been a journalistic standard that stories about the Swords and possibly the Oak Leaves were front-page news no matter what, because the June 6, 1944 papers include a story about that. The Knight's Cross was front-page news on D-Day. Likewise this paper from July 22, 1944, the first after the July 20 plot, mentions Swords on the front page and new RKs on the second. Note that per WP:GNG the fact that the Knight's Cross generated coverage in secondary sources is to be taken as evidence for notability, even if it is so because the Nazi government placed a very high emphasis on medals given for military service. Roches (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If we would be consistent here, we should add article for all recipient of the French Legion of Honour, the highest French medal (and awarded over a million times; with a about a 100,000 living recipients today). It seems WP:Soldier assumes that highest award are rare (as they are with the VC in the UK or the medal of honour in the US (both in existence well over 100 years and on average awarded fewer than 30 times a year over the time). Arnoutf (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It is always based on coverage in sources; WP:SOLDIER is not policy. The problem here is that the sources are predominantly in German, and many sources are not searchable. So, what concerns me is nominating a page for deletion, or voting "delete", based on a search of English-language sources. Roches (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely with this comment by Roches. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Concur - Roches makes an extremely valid point. German (and other) language newspapers should enjoy the same credibility/weight that we give to the Telegraph for example. 06:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone disputing they shouldn't be given equal weight? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The initiator of this discussion said: "Off-line German language sources" are not available to me -- both physically and linguistically. I assume that would be true for most English wiki editors. Contemporaneous sources published between 1939 and 1945 would be highly unreliable, having been produced under the totalitarian regime. I expect they would not be of any use, unless covered by reliable secondary sources as part of WWII historiography. I strongly agree with Roches' point and disagree with K.e.coffman's dismissal of off-line German sources. Pburka (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I also stated: "I'm not following -- how would 1939-45 sources be reliable? We don't use them to source articles on WWII battles, for example. Also to clarify, I'm not arguing against German language sources; my point is that none have been added in eight years, so it's unrealistic to expect that they would be in foreseeable future." There was no response on why contemporaneous sources would be reliable.

I believe that German sources (in particular newspapers) were brought up in the context of verifying the award; see for example from Roches: "most likely, most German newspapers printed lists of new Knight's Cross recipients. The most reliable sources just happened to be undigitized, unsearchable" -- this is not needed since Fellgiebel or Scherzer are already included in these articles; they are generally accepted as RS to confirm the award.

The issue under discussion is not whether the subjects received the award, but about them failing GNG due to lack of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Reliable secondary sources in WP:MILMOS#SOURCES context are discussed as follows:

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article.

K.e.coffman (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Official documents, even (or perhaps especially) of a totalitarian regime, about awarding medals to individuals can probably be considered reliable primary documents. The issue at stake is not so much whether there is sufficient evidence these medals were awarded but instead whether being the mere recipient of one of these medals implies notability at a level of GNG even in the absence of further evidence. For VC or medal of honour I would say yes - in part because of their rarity, for the KC I would say no. Arnoutf (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I agree with BrownHairedGirl in that this is really not about ANYBIO1, it is about possible amendment to WP:SOLDIER, specifically with regard to the Knight's Cross. The application of ANYBIO1 is far wider than the highest military award for valour in each country, and it is really a red herring in this discussion. The presumption of notability for Knight's Cross recipients comes from WP:SOLDIER, not the far wider ANYBIO1, of which the SOLDIER presumption constitutes a very small subset. In fact, because we are specifically talking about the application of SOLDIER, the discussion should be taking place in project space where it will get greater exposure to editors with a clue about such things. If WP:MILNG or WP:SOLDIER need modification, the place to have the discussion is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Also, from my reading of the extensive discussion here, I can't see any likelihood that a consensus will be reached that we dispense with the AfD process for hundreds? of articles and give carte blanche to anyone to turn them into redirects to the alphabetical lists, so there seems to be little point in continuing the back and forth. I suggest that interested editors work their way through the Knight's Cross lists, make an assessment of whether they individually meet the GNG, then AfD those that they don't believe meet the GNG, proposing they be redirected to the relevant alphabetical list. Then they can each be discussed on their merits, some will be kept, some will end up as redirects. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of dispute resolution request

I requested dispute resolution on this issue, naming myself, K.e.coffmann and Peacemaker67 as involved editors, although there are many editors involved. It's clear that no editor will convince another that a source is reliable or not. Further, large numbers of articles have been affected by this apparently well-intentioned effort at denazification. It would be impossible to resolve each issue separately, and beyond impossible to ensure a fair standard was applied to all the involved articles. Roches (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Roches, do you mind linking to the DRN discussion? I don't seem to have been pinged. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Here it is: Dispute resolution for this page. My assessment of the discussion may or may not be accurate, but so many articles are affected now that there has to be a single standard in place for all of them.

I looked over Wikipedia coverage of recipients of the highest award for valor in World War II:

There is near-complete coverage for the high grades of the Polish Virtuti Militari and the Japanese Order of the Golden Kite, but very little other information. But note that all recipients of multiple Knight's Crosses have an article. Roches (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment -- The KC holder category on German Wikipedia contains 323 entries. It seems implausible that the KC recipients would be 10 times more notable in English than they are in German. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, that only means they have not written as many articles on the subject as of yet; one could argue that is true as far as any number of articles for all other Wikipedia's in other languages; English Wikipedia has far and away many more articles overall then any other one. Kierzek (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This is clearly some kind of anomaly. For example, roughly 500 of KC holder articles were created by editor Jim Sweeney between Oct 2008 and Feb 2009 (pls see history from that period. Editor DocYako's creation of KC holder articles was more spread out: between 2010 and 2016 they created over 1,500 (see history, maybe more. With just two editors responsible for over 2,000 cookie-cutter articles, I can't say that this is wikipedia community coming together organically to create content. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (new WP:Soldier criteria for Nazi Germany)

Proposal 1: We modify the WP:Soldier criteria for all Nazi-era Knights Cross winners to only include those who were awarded the knights cross with Oak Leaves. If I understand the discussion above correctly then this was in fact the country's second highest award (after the one that only Hitler received, and yes, I checked and he already has a page).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: I support this proposal because it will be more in line with other countries WP:Soldier criteria and will not have the effect of biasing the creation of Wikipedia pages in favor of award winners from a totalitarian state whose purpose in providing thousands of these awards was propagandistic and part of a broader strategy to manipulate the population of Europe towards barbarism.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose For several reasons (1) The essay (not a guideline) in WP:Soldier is within the remit of the Milhist project. This discussion should be done there (2) The WP:Soldier discussion only suggests that receiving the highest honour is likely linked to be sufficient report, but does not make a definite claim it is sufficient. (3) Making an exception for a specific (no longer existing) state would require that all states are reviewed. And indeed there seem to be reasons to limit this clause for other cases as well. For example, for the French Legion of Honour it seems to be consensus that only the higher classes are considered notable because of the currently about 100,000 living recipients. (compared to e.g. the Dutch Military William Order with only 4 living recipients at the moment). So all in all, this seems to be solving a non-existing problem, or if the problem exists, to solve only one part of it. To take this further - please argue there is a problem, and secondly, propose a generic solution rather than a state specific one. Arnoutf (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per Arnoutf. This is a matter for MILHIST. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this is not only incorrect, as I have tried to explain in some detail above, but it is a matter for MILHIST. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per above. This is incorrect -- also, unless I'm mistaken, Hitler refused to wear any medals besides his World War I Iron Cross and Black Wound Badge. You may be thinking of Goering's Grand Cross of the Iron Cross. Roches (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is a misunderstanding of the award, which does not have the same structure as the Legion of Honour, but also of WP:SOLDIER. All it says is that our experience has been that sources are available to write articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Note that although WP:SOLDIER does not claim that meeting its criteria = inherent notability, that is certainly how it is almost invariably interpreted, so I would be wary about taking the exact wording too literally. I would agree that only the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and above confers inherent notability, for the reasons I have outlined before (i.e. the Knight's Cross is far too common to equate to the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor and while some awards definitely did equate to the level of bravery required for those awards, many more did not), but I would not agree that an unadorned Knight's Cross does not confer inherent notability (as a single second- or third-level award does not). It depends entirely on the circumstances of award. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a point of clarification. Your response doesn't address Knight's Crosses awarded prior to the creation of the Oak Leaves. ie prior to Barbarossa. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Makes no difference to what I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, an artificial and arbitrary cut-off as to who to include and exclude is not the way it should be done. They should be looked at on a case by case basis with there being a rebuttable presumption of notability. Kierzek (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose, such a cut off is an arbitrary criterium. It would mean the same as arbitrarily saying that people who were awarded an upgraded MoH don’t deserve an article. – fdewaele, 25 July 2016, 16:50 CET.

Proposal 2

We modify the WP:Soldier criteria so that single reception of a highest honour is only considered sufficient for presumed notability when the highest honour is awarded less frequently than 50 times on average over the life of the honour. That would count for both (single) Knights cross and (French) legion of honour awardees. Arnoutf (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Support This would exclude in an unbiased way situations where high honours are not rare. Arnoutf (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is a matter for MILHIST. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Per Chris T. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per above. I do not support automatic notability. Roches (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Agree that this is a matter for MILHIST. But for the record, the actual criteria for an award is not what is important here. We are not in the business of deciding if one award is more worthy than another. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but we essentially are. We have already decided that (under the Commonwealth and American systems) the recipient of a single first-level award is inherently notable whereas the recipient of a single second-level award is not. Obviously the former award is higher - that stands to reason - but it is we who have decided that its recipients are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia whereas the recipients of the latter are not. This is simple enough under those systems, but it is not at all simple for countries that do not use such a structured system (i.e. most of them). And that's our problem. Does a medal awarded to 7,000 people in six years confer the same inherent notability as one awarded to 1,300 people in 150 years? Clearly it does not, unless the former nation is over a hundred times larger than the latter nation or the former's soldiers are over a hundred times braver, both of which are obviously a nonsense. Yet under WP:SOLDIER we would give both awards equal weight because they are both the "top" award for gallantry, despite the former clearly being often awarded for "lesser" acts than the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Here’s a thought: None of the single awards of a KC qualify under SOLDIER1 since it cannot be reliably determined whether they were awarded for valour vs other things, due to the fact that the award was not structured that way. This automatically takes off presumption of notability off a single-award recipient, in the absence of other military notability factors, such as “commanded a significant body of troops (division or higher)" and/or held a "general officer rank”.
The sources included with the articles provide a one line entry for each subject. They reliably state that an award was presented to a named individual, their rank, and the unit they served with at the time of the nomination, and the date of the presentation. The rest of the information presented in the articles was apparently sourced from dubious websites such as lexicon-der-wehrmacht.de; ritterkrauzerjager1939-45.de (or some such); das-reich.ca or frontjkemper.nl, among others. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I would agree and I have argued that in the past, but been shouted down by those who claim that SOLDIER applies to any "highest" award even if it's awarded to many thousands rather than tens or hundreds. It's always needed a bit of common sense to interpret the criterion and realise that it can only really apply to the Commonwealth/American system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Monopoly31121993 makes a valid point about totalitarian regimes where high awards were used for propaganda purposes, among other things. I've done some "original research" by comparing the award rate of the U.S. Medal of Honor to the Knight's Cross. My inputs were: 464 Medal of Honor recipients out of appox. US 18M servicemen in WWII (0.0026% award rate). For Germany, 7,300 KC recipients out of approx 20M servicemen (0.036% award rate). For the Knight's Cross to be as prestigious and rare as the Medal of Honor, it would have needed to be awarded in about 500 cases. Unless my math is completely off, this equates roughly to Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, of which ~860 were awarded, a much lower number vs the Knight's Cross.
Similar to the KC, the title of Hero of the Soviet Union (HSU) was a mass award: ~11,600 recipients out of 34M personnel during WWII. This equates to an award rate of 0.034%, on par with that of the KC. However, currently WP has 625 articles in the HSU category (for about 5% of recipients), so hopefully these are genuinely notable subjects.
In contrast, there are about 3750 KC holder articles, that is, roughly 50% of recipients (all grades) have a WP article. This seems way out of proportion to either Western Allies (due to the rarity of the awards for valour) or the Soviet Union (due to the general lack of English sources and the language barrier). It also appears that two editors (DocYako and JimSweeney) were responsible for the creation of the bulk of the article that have caused my notability concerns (at least hundreds each); so these articles were not created “organically” by a diverse group of contributors—an unusual circumstance. (I again left msg for both editors to see if they would like to engage with the discussion here).
From this math it appears that the issue is indeed country-specific: Germany during WWII. Perhaps it needs to be handled as a special case? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The problems with your maths is that a) not all Knight's Crosses were awarded for valour, and b) such a system (limiting to Oak Leaves and above) doesn't take into account awards before the Oak Leaves were created, and c) it is terribly skewed against lower-ranking soldiers awarded the Knight's Cross for valour. I believe all the arguments have been made above, so there is no point in repeating them all here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The proposal does not bias against lower-ranking soldiers if they have sufficient RS in order to meet the general requirements to have a biographic reference in Wikipedia. A major problem right now is that there are lots of pages that don't even meet that criteria and that is the case because two editors decided to create hundreds of article of Nazi-era Knights Cross awards winners (often using one of 2 German language texts as RS, which, in at least in one case, even the text's author cautions against).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the U.S. Medal of Honor has been awarded for propaganda purposes (eg Charles Lindbergh and Douglas MacArthur). That is not what is important. What is important is that the award attracts sufficient interest that readers want to read about them, and sufficient information becomes available for us to write about them. That is the case with the Medal of Honor, and it is the case with the Knight's Cross. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The propaganda aspect is important because we are assuming that there is comparability been these awards across all countries. If tomorrow, North Korea decided it wanted to issue it's highest award to 4 people every day there's no way Wikipedians would agree on parroting that information into Wikipedia pages for each of them but that is exactly the situation that we have here for the Nazi regime.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I was surprised that so many Knight's Cross holders have WP articles, so I checked some similar awards. Every one of the Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross recipients for World War II has a Wikipedia article. Although there are very few English articles, every Hero of the Soviet Union has an article in Russian Wikipedia. Roches (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And there we are back to the core of the issue. Are KC, VC, and Medal of Honor similar awards. With the total number of VC being 1358 since its inception in 1856, and only 181 being awarded during WWII; with the KC being awarded 7,364 times (all during WWII) - which is roughly 40 times as many. Therefore I would argue these awards are in fact NOT similar (unless we can agree that the German armed forces across the board showed 40 times as much valour compared to the British forces (or about 15 times a valorous compared to the US armed forces looking at the number of medals of honour awarded). Arnoutf (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The statement "not all Knight's Crosses were awarded for valour" problematic, as it's unknowable which were awarded for "extreme battlefield bravery" and which were awarded for "successful military leadership", since Nazi Germany itself did not appear to make this distinction. Fellgiebel and Scherzer (two of the most frequently sources cited in WP to establish the fact of the award) do not provide this information. Suggesting that editors figure out which was which on their own and "give the subjects of these articles the benefit of the doubt [re: valour]" is inviting OR.
Here's a sample article on a low-ranking Waffen-SS KC holder: Otto Kron -- it is cited entirely to the dubious web site fronjkemper (which apparently used to be a Norwegian Waffen-SS fan site, now dead); describes his "suffering through the Russian Winter"; and in general looks like a WP:Memorial. More of the same: Max Seela (tagged refimprove since 2012). Both came off the Template: KC recipients in SS Division Totenkopf.
K.e.coffman (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's only problematic because you can't access their recommendation documents or newspaper articles about them, including obituaries. I've made the point about non-English sources above. It's certainly not "unknowable". Just because you can't access the offline sources that may have information about them or their award doesn't mean they don't exist. Several other editors have pointed out the same thing. Giving them the benefit of the doubt is not OR, it is based on a presumption made by SOLDIER that sources exist that would meet GNG. BTW, Seela's exploits are described in Sydnor's Soldiers of Destruction published by Princeton University Press, and they certainly appear to meet the valour criteria. A simple Google search would have located that reference on the first page of results. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above that nomination documents would be reliable WP:Primary sources, if these were available (they are not in Scherzer and Fellgiebel).

In contrast, contemporaneous secondary sources (I.e. newspapers) are either

  • limited, as in the sample presented by Roches—simply a list of KC recipients, which is a trivial mention; moreover, same information is already available in Scherzer and has been cross checked with archival material and is thus more reliable
  • unreliable journalistic accounts, put through the prism of war-time propaganda. Wikipedia does not consider propaganda, whether Allied or Axis, to be a reliable source.

I looked into obituaries; they are not listed in WP:RS main page, but here’s what I found in the WP:RS Talk archives as a proposed addition:

Obituaries can be an invaluable resource for biographical articles, providing essential details like birth and death dates, family relations, education, and a timeline of major accomplishments. News obituaries, which are written by journalists and subject to fact checking, can provide essential biographical details and a good summary of a person's acheivements. Classified obituaries, which are written and paid for by the deceased's family, should be considered self-published sources and do not contribute to satisfying the General notability guideline.

And:

(a) Obituaries at newspapers and other publications are frequently not written by staff journalists but by outsiders who have an especially informed perspective on the deceased party - sometimes, indeed, people who knew him. For example, if astrophysicist X dies, astrophysicist Y (if she is a good writer) might be invited to contribute an obituary. (b) The addition perpetuates the myth (acknowledged even in fact checking) that newspapers fact-check on a rigorous and routine basis. They don't - for that matter I don't think even the U.S. newsweeklies do it the way that they used to be famous for.

Obituaries most likely would be controversial when used as a source to establish GNG. For MilHist, preferred sources are discussed as: "With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians." In the absence of reliable secondary sources, GNG can be challenged if only established by primary or self-published materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, I get that you're on a bit of a mission to get rid of Nazi hero worshipping authors and websites from en WP. It's a laudable aim. I've deleted many links to axishistory and feldgrau and other fansites myself over the years. But I'm afraid you are getting a bit carried away with this particular campaign, and risk creating a systemic bias against German military biographies on en WP. Let's use an example. Recommendation documents for WWI and WWII soldiers of Australia have been digitised and are available free online. Australian obituaries are easily available via the National Library of Australia Trove website that provides free digital copies of all but the most local of newspapers. Given my first (and only fluent) language is English, it makes it very easy for me to access them and use them to cite articles on Australian soldiers. Where are the equivalent German recommendation documents? Presumably at the Bundesarchiv, but not digitised as far as I can tell. There are also de-Nazification records, probably also there, undigitised. Have German newspapers been digitised to the same extent as Australian ones? I don't know, but I am certainly not aware of where they might be held if they have. I've made an effort to look too, as I have an FA or two on German-speaking soldiers, and expect there will be more information available on them, if only I could access it from Australia. My German is very scratchy however, so I would struggle to find the relevant information even if both types of information were fully digitised and searchable as they are in Australia. But the German information can quite reasonably be presumed to exist. How many German-language books on WWII have been digitised and are available in Google Books preview? Not very many, I'll give you the drum. I repeat, you risk creating a serious systemic bias against German military biographies by going around PRODing articles because you don't personally have access to the offline sources that might mean someone meets GNG. I note you haven't acknowledged the fact that I found a mention of Seela in a book without even trying, even though you used him as an example of what is wrong with having articles on Knight's Cross recipients. I have to say that you are undermining your own argument a bit here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Gentlemen, regardless of whether the reasons for giving these awards is reliably discernable or not, which is an issue in it of itself, the problem remains that simply too many Knight's Crosses were awarded, taking away from their relevance. You can hardly call the award notable when it's been awarded 40 times more often that it's foreign equivalents. And what's with this "victor's justice" nonsense, Peacemaker67? You should know that history is written by the literate, not the victors. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such statements. You call K.e.coffman out for excess of zeal, but your borderline apologist affirmations make me more wary of you.--MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't care less if you are wary of me, my record of quality content creation in highly-contested areas of WP speaks for itself. The problem isn't with the number awarded, it is with the attempt to apply a blanket approach to it (because K.e.coffman is apparently too busy to look at each one individually). They should be handled on an individual basis, based on when they were awarded and for what, not some arbitrary number comparison, which also shows Anglo-American systemic bias given the number of Hero's of the Soviet Union awarded. Next thing you'll be telling me that I have a borderline apologist approach to the Soviet Union. Give me strength... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the only one wary of you, mate. Your record of quality in general doesn't mean you are unbiased, and frankly, the borderline Wehrmacht circlejerk you and your group indulge in is alarming. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
"My group"? What "group" is that? FFS. Go carefully, Max, personal attacks are verboten. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe editor Peacemaker has self-identified this "group" (whether real or imagined) via statements such as ""these deletions are not in consensus in the Milhist community" and "That is not how we do military biographies on en WP". Indeed, editor Peacemaker makes frequent allusions to "en Wiki" as in this discussion between MilHist coordinators: "de WP is a very different beast from en WP (...). I don't think en WP will benefit from accommodating the [anti-Nazi] hard line that is apparently standard there". Another editor chimes in with: "I've also had encounters with the diehard anti-Nazis, to my chagrin" while the rest of the participants look on.
In this thread on my talk page, an uninvolved editor described these statements as indicative of WP:OWN and WP:FACTION attitudes, with editors "engaging in their own internal, insular processes". Similar commentary was offered at a recent GAR: "appears to be a kind of echo chamber"; "I would suggest that there is a systemic issue for articles of this kind."; "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS"; etc.
Editor MaxRavenclaw is clearly not the only one being concerned over this. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, as I argued above, the French Legion of Honour and indeed the hero of the Soviet Union have the same issue. Far too many awarded to presume notability merely based on the award. If anything seems Anglo-American biased, I would argue it is the WP:Soldier essay.
Your argument above, that a case by case analysis for notability should be made seems relevant. However, this places their inclusion in the GNG domain. The issue now becomes whether this case by case analysis is up to those claiming notability or that those who dispute notability merely based on WP:SOLDIER should provide the (negative) evidence the person is actually not notable. The latter is in my view impossible as with all negative evidence (and the point that obscure German sources are not readily available becomes a valid point here). So if we put this back to the original supporter of the article the argument becomes that WP:Soldier is not sufficient for keeping the article. Close to what was proposed at the start of this post. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Many of the arguments presented for keeping the status quo have not been convincing: "WP:IMPATIENT"; "GNG should not matter in these cases"; "Contemporaneous sources are extremely reliable" [how is propaganda reliable?]; "a person does not become non-notable because they are only mentioned in potentially unreliable sources"; "the risk of creating a systemic bias", "apparently too busy to look at each one individually", among others. The allusions to "victor's justice" and arguments along the lines of "if you delete German KC holder articles, you should also delete articles on Allied personnel" especially do not hold water.

The Max Seela article is relevant here. It's been tagged refimprove since 2012, so if it only took 10 minutes to find a source, why has not this happened in the four intervening years? This goes back to my point that these articles cover topics that are not that interesting to the Wikipedia community, and by extension, to the general public. What's the point in keeping these memorial / stub articles if no improvements are forthcoming?

Since Peacemaker raised the issue of me being a "campaigner", I would like to point out that it's not the first time that this has come up. Here are a few examples of prior content disagreements:

  • In the discussion of what the editor acknowledged was "uncited or poorly cited" material: " I recommend you just restrict yourself to making the language more neutral where necessary".
  • Edit summary: "That is not how we do military biographies on en WP". We[who?]?
  • I have previously raised the issue of sources at MilHist FA/GA articles in the April MilHist FA/GA discussion. The results were inconclusive, with some editors noting "Problem is that if we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty", while editor PeaceMaker called me a "campaigner", writing: "This whole process has been dubious. .. I've seen that before in the areas where I edit, and it usually says more about the campaigner."
  • More recently, Peacemaker and another MilHist coordinator defended the use of extensive quoting from German war-time propaganda broadcasts on the grounds that it is "historic testimony": see Bach-Zalewski discussion, as well as that on Manstein Talk page. Editor Peacemaker in particular suggested that these quotes should stay in because Nazi propaganda isn't just propaganda, its also news, concluding with: "In this case it may have included euphemisms for criminal actions, but it may equally have been referring to bravery in combat against armed fighters of the Home Army." (Indeed, going door to door shooting civilians is hard work). In the end, Peacemaker has reconsidered their position, so perhaps my "campaigning" is having an effect?
  • The sourcing issues are not recents and have been raised before by other contributors, such as in these links from 2013: (1) Deletions of so called unreliable sources and (2) "Immortal German Soldiers", in which same editors defended keeping right-wing sources.
  • Regarding recent AfDs: "I suggest you stop, otherwise I will take your conduct to ANI" (BTW, I don't believe I've PRODed any KC holder articles, as Peacemaker alleges; perhaps I am being confused with another editor?).
  • More commentary can be found on my Talk page (User_talk:K.e.coffman#GAR), including a link to a discussion where Peacemaker describes my actions as a "problem" due to "hard line anti-Nazi" attitudes; and yes, that's probably the first time that I've heard the term anti-Nazi used pejoratively, including by a MilHist lead coordinator.

Editor Peacemaker has accused me of being a "deletionist" on several occasions; but I would argue that "keepism" (the term I learned just recently) is indeed a problem, as this thread has demonstrated. In any case, this seems to be headed to an RfC as the views appear to be polar opposites. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

K.e. different opinions are held and differences of opinion stated. Stating that "many" don't hold water is not going to win the day; it is a difference of stated opinion; I see it all the time in my day job. And unlike my day job there is not a judge to rule on the matter (and even then they get appealed and reversed at times). As for me I stated my opinion above and stand by it. And I agree with the editor above who noted that the Germans are not the only nation with awards and articles which have problems. The Soviet Union especially comes to mind. I don't believe we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Anyway, I don't see a conclusive outcome as to this matter herein at this time on this board. Kierzek (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
This can only be solved by RfC, but we should not slow down the process of assessing notability of individual RK articles. There's clearly a problem of perceived notability not being borne out by sources. And Peacemaker66, if anyone's behavior is alarming, it's yours. Nobody but wehraboos would want to read individual pages of so many German soldiers. A single page with a list and shot descriptions should have been enough, but in your fervor you're throwing threats and only making yourself look bad. You clearly have an agenda. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I have an agenda? You have less than 200 edits in a year on en WP, and no articles created. And no edits on any other language WP. Yet you are engaged in a detailed discussion of a WP guideline, strongly supporting one editor and disparaging those that oppose his POV. That's a very steep learning curve for anyone. I smell sock, or meat... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I see that threats and accusations are favourites with the above editor. Indeed, it's extremely odd that there might be other alleged "anti-Nazis" on Wikipedia. :-) Next thing they would see collusion / socking here as well: Neo-Nazi publications or Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Otto Kittel/1. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Come on boys, enough with the mud slinging, stay on point. Kierzek (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I would agree but I don't like being called a "campaigner" and my contributions dismissed as a "crusade" or "being on a mission". I believe that these are issues of concern to the community overall. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, such a cut off is an arbitrary criterium. There should never be a numerus clausus on valour. Plus this effort depicts a lack of understanding of the award, which didn’t only military success on a strategic or tactical level (generals, which almost automatically means they meet notability in itself) but also recognized individual feats of valour, but also continuous/repeated valour (tank destroyers, pilot aces, U-boat aces,…) and had in due time as war progressed more categories to distinguish those continuous acts of valour– fdewaele, 25 July 2016, 16:50 CET.

ANYBIO1

  • Procedural comment. Please move this discussion to project space. It is about proposed amendments to an essay, whereas this page is for discussing Wikipedia's notability policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree about moving the discussion, because WP:ANYBIO is also in play, as it has been brought up as justifying the keeping of KC holder articles. This section of the notability guidelines read:

Any biography:

  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Some editors interpret KC as meeting ANYBIO1; see for example: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josef_Preiß, "No need to debate about which military medals are more valuable than others, there is actually a very broad Special Notability Criterion for WP inclusion. WP:Notability for Biography, "Any Bio no. 1," which states: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." That's all there is to it, there is no need to meet an arcane Military project hoop. This subject passes on that basis."

My interpretation is that there's no equivalence between the KC (if used as #1) and #2 "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record"; they are just not on the same level. So perhaps ANYBIO1 needs to be clarified? I.e. a Nobel Prize qualifies, but another award doesn't?

Thus any potential RfC may need to address whether or not a single award of a Knight's Cross qualifies under ANYBIO1. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. ANYBIO1 is way too broad, and as well as being narrowed it should offer no more than a rebuttable presumption of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Here's an idea -- should ANYBIO1 be dispensed with altogether? A Nobel Prize winner has indisputably "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record", so ANYBIO1 is not needed. Thoughts? Otherwise, as you point out, ANYBIO1 is way to broad and ambiguous, while being subject to POV interpretations. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As a largely disinterested observer in this particular discussion, but as someone who has dealt with ANYBIO1 a fair few times, I'd say that it needs significant clarification, as it does nothing at all to define "well-known and significant". To use examples in my area of editing, the main Australian honours system goes from AC at the top through AO and AM to OAM - all significant and well-known honours, but only the first two really consistently include people who can safely be assumed to be notable. We've had this discussion a lot at AfD with people trying to use OAM, for example, as evidence of notability - and according to ANYBIO1, they're not necessarily wrong. Evidently this kind of thing happens with most honours systems, and even at the top eschelons of some as we're seeing. Perhaps ANYBIO1 should be moved to a specific section and narrowed and clarified quite substantially, or even turned into a sub-essay of its own with detailed explanations. Frickeg (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: The purpose of an SNG should be to avoid cluttering up AFD with a flood of nominations of underdeveloped articles on a set of topics where it is overwhelmingly likely that the sources do exist to meet GNG. In this case it seems that the spread is too broad to achieve that purpose, and is giving a presumption of notability to sets topics which are actually unlikely to pass GNG.
So, can it be narrowed without becoming too verbose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:: My suggestion would be to trim and reword as follows:

Any biography:

  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, such as the Nobel Prize.
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

I think "nominated several times" is unnecessary, and including the Nobel Prize as a point of comparison would be helpful to editors. Such as in "Is the KC in any way, shape or form comparable to the Nobel Prize? No—nothing to see here, please move along." K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what's known as a wrecking amendment?
It's just a verbose way of saying "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, such as the Nobel Prize". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 3

  • Attempted restatement/summarisation of the masses of text above:
  1. The RK was awarded for valour and/or leadership and/or success (confirmed kills, etc). An RK award for valour was the highest such award in Nazi Germany. However WP:SOLDIER is indicative and not presumptive, and it’s possible to meet WP:SOLDIER#1 ("Were awarded their nation’s highest award for valour") and yet not meet notability requirements.
  2. Approximately 9133 RKs (to ~7945 individuals) were awarded during WW2. On the numbers, relatively few RKs would meet the level of valour required for the VC or MOH (181 and 471 respectively during WW2).
  3. Higher grades of RK (Oak Leaves, etc) were achieved only through multiple awards of the RK. Someone could hypothetically have achieved one grade for valour, another for leadership, and a third for a combination. Higher grades may not be sufficient indication of notability.
  4. Between May 1939 and the introduction of the Oak Leaves in June 1940, relatively few RKs were awarded (though still higher than VC/MOH rates).
  5. There are over 3000 RK recipients with individual pages on en-wp. The majority have little personal information (perhaps birth and death) besides a list of medals and campaigns. In most cases, the sources used do not indicate why they received it.
  6. It is likely that where a recipient is a soldier of low rank, they would have received their RK for valour. It is likely that where a recipient is of high rank that they would have received their RK for leadership. This is not certain, however, and would still require verification.
  7. Scherzer can be considered a sufficiently reliable source for confirmation of award. Feldgiebel is slightly less reliable. Neither provide reasons for award.
  8. A source can potentially be sufficiently reliable in one way while being unreliable in another. Official and/or contemporaneous records (eg, newspaper) can be used to confirm that an RK has been awarded even if there’s propaganda aspects elsewhere. Obituaries can be used for birth and death dates and places.
  9. Confirmation that award has been made is not sufficient to confirm notability.
  10. Records indicating reasons for awards are generally inaccessible, would be offline if anywhere, may be fragmentary or lost particularly for late stage awards, and would mostly be in German.
  11. Many of the articles as they stand do not meet GNG evidentiary standards. Although some would, due to lack of ready evidence a determination cannot easily be made as to which would meet other notability criteria if all relevant sources including offline ones were to be used. WP:NORUSH applies, however it has been 8 years. Unfortunately there’s not an easy way to determine if any particular RK recipient is notable.
  12. All guidelines are guidelines (and not necessarily consistent with each other).
  • My main concern is to avoid thousands of individual AFDs for RK-recipient articles of questionable individual notability, which I’d consider more harmful on balance (in terms of editor time and energy) than retention of these articles (WP:NOW doesn't really apply on the presumption that the articles are basically correct, if of questionable notability).
  • Not everyone requires an article regardless of notability (eg WP:BIO1E). Where an RK recipient's notability remains uncertain, my preference would be for merge&redirect to list (either standalone or article subsection) instead of deletion This could be treated as an uncontroversial reduction if list entries encapsulated current articles' sourced information, redirects preserved categories, and lists were at the lowest level possible rather than in one of the alphabetical monstrosities. Noting that this does not meet standard criteria for WP:LISTPEOPLE, might for WP:LISTN, and arguably avoids WP:NOTDIRECTORY, would there be a problem with this? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- this is well reasoned and also timely, since I went through the exercise of checking the articles listed in this discussion against German Wiki. The inputs were 43 randomly selected articles that I posted at the opening of this thread (including the AfDs that concluded) + two articles from the later in the discussion, including Seela.
I located 3 articles on the German wiki, and another one on the Latvian Wiki. It works out to 9% of the articles in the sample having a corresponding article in their native language. For detailed listing, please see User:K.e.coffman/Sandbox. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Hydronium Hydroxide's point about the comparative harm of thousands of AfDs versus retention is highly valid. I agree that WP:NOW really doesn't apply, so if any editor is that concerned about these articles, they should be worked through individually. There is WP:NORUSH, and certainly no basis for some sort of en WP-wide blanket approach that this thread seems to be aiming for. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I belive the suggestion is "Where an RK recipient's notability remains uncertain, (...) merge & redirect to list (either standalone or article subsection) instead of deletion This could be treated as an uncontroversial reduction", not for maintaining the status quo. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree on the list. Just as I suggested previously, it'd be far better than having a myriad of individual pages nobody visits. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for that recap. I agree with Peacemaker67 that we should not spend time and effort removing all these articles. On the other hand, I do agree with K.e.coffman that is such an article comes up for deletion and the only sourced claim to notability is the award of a KC that would almost certainly not suffice to keep it. Arnoutf (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments: WOW!! this has become interesting. I am not a deletionist and have found some obscure sources on foreign (other than English) articles so I know information is likely out there "somewhere". A problem is usually with translations as I only know English and translator sites are poor at best. I do agree that a biography stub, with almost no content, started because the subject was the recipient of a Knights cross, with zero information as to why it was given, is an issue. I do not ever want mass AFD's because throwing out good material to get rid of possible trash is ludicrous.
I also think that if time is not the issue (8 years is a long time though) then this should have/could have been dealt with at the project level. It is sad to me that there are literally thousands of Playboy bunny articles, the majority being one-time-wonders with only one primary source, mainly because of the nudity aspect to the male species, but we can't find references for instances of valor or instances of "duty above and beyond the call of duty" where actual heroic deeds were accomplished, because of a language issue or location of a reliable source. This is not deserving to the "hero's" but I would never want to know that some officer or soldier received any award, listed as valor, or performance of duty, when this was a result of doing a good job exterminating people. We should also remember The Nuremberg Trials, Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings, Nazi hunters, and trials in other countries, could not have caught all the "bad guys".
We also don't need an article on every recipient "just because" as that would be about equal to having an article on every Eastern Front Medal recipient. "IF" there is "no" reference as to why the award was given, then I have hesitation.
I understand Peacemaker67's position but "can not" fault K.e.coffman for his position either. It is too bad we couldn't get enough interested editors to go through the "list" that seems to be from 300 to 3000, making it a project, and discuss these with Wikipedia enhancement ---and I feel reader protection (excluding awards for atrocities)--- as a goal. Editors just don't get awarded for cleaning up articles the same as creating them. Short of any thoughts of mass deletions, or a perceived idea that it is acceptable, I suppose "merge&redirect" to some list is a better choice.
@ K.e.coffman, Peacemaker67, and @AustralianRupert: I agree that just receiving a Knight's Cross should not make a recipient inherently notable, "especially" if there is no source as to why the award was given. I have a lot going on but I am willing to help explore neutrally weeding out controversial articles (controversial can = under referenced and can = merge) as long as that is a goal and not just deleting to delete. A notable hero is still a hero and it does not matter if he/she was on the losing side so bias noes not need to be involved. We must be hesitant using the wording uncontroversial reduction. Fritz Amling was equivalent to a platoon sergeant (correct?), received the Iron Cross and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, to "recognise extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership", which it appears is generally what they all state, and a AFD was "no consensus". I noted the rationale for deletion, Peacemaker67's suggestion that was followed, the one "keep" (creating the no consensus), and AustralianRupert's "redirect" to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) because of the possible " language barrier" issues. Had I seen this I would have also probably replied with "redirect".
One of my issues is that I agree with Peacemaker67 concerning references that aren't in English, that appear to be along the line with AustralianRupert. Rajka Baković is a good example. I stumbled across some references that have been "out there" but was not used regarding what I feel is interesting (to those of interest) content but I had to use a translator.
  • Lino Masarie (stub article) could be subjected to the same criteria, "except", he was awarded multiple times, receiving the German Cross in gold (repeated acts of bravery or achievement in combat), as well as the Wound Badge, and I can not tell which. This would possible place him in a German category comparable to and List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War II, would this be true? If so, and we are striving for bias neutrality, then this would seem to be eligibility for a stand-a-lone article just needing references. Also if true then this is a very good example why we have to watch using words like "uncontroversial reduction". A solution will likely take more than one day and mass moving articles, or mass anything, provides room for mass errors. It is not really a question concerning should we "spend time and effort removing all these articles". If an article does not belong on Wikipedia it or they should be removed. We should not allow bias, claiming reasoning for exclusion of some articles that can "lead to the removal of information that is valid", while upholding inclusion of other like articles, because language barriers or obstacles to finding sources is the problem, and not actually a lack of such resources. Otr500 (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said before, the award is such where for the recipient who has an article there should be a "rebuttable presumption", which if there are no RS sources which are there or cannot reasonably be found, "redirect" to the proper list should be done, which I know is also what Otr500 suggests. The course of direction for an article should be pretty easy for ones where there clearly is nothing reasonable to be found, other than this man received the award on this date. I also believe mass removal and deletions is not the answer. I trust it is fair to say, we all want this volunteer project of ours to be well done for readers, well to do things right often takes time. What is the rush. Kierzek (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the redirect proposal as a good compromise between "keepism"/"deletionism". AfD/PROD would not be required and the article history would be preserved. In cases where the sources become available, the article could be easily restored to its prior state and new content added. I'm not sure if editor Hydronium Hydroxide means these and similar lists —List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (R) — when they say "one of the alphabetical monstrosities", but for expediency, I think the alphabetical lists may be preferable. They are thoroughly cited, while the divisional lists, such as List of Knight's Cross recipients SS Division Norland, are not, or they are cited to axishistory.com (online forum). The corner cases where the award itself is in dispute, and significant coverage in RS is not present, could be addressed via PROD, such as this one: Willy Albrecht. I think this may be a workable solution. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I must admit to having only skimmed most of the two sections above. My views are probably not fully in line with the current notability standards but I think they need a shake up anyway. However, where we have multiple pieces of information about an individual we should give them their own article. If we only know that they got the award we put them in an encyclopedic list (not a flat directory, it must also have some other details) only. No matter how notable someone is according to any guideline, if the article is only ever going to be permanent micro stub with only one or two sentences, then just redirect their name to the encyclopedic list with the stub's details in the list entry instead. Not every interesting thing deserves an article, but it probably deserves to be in the encyclopedia. Notability should be about getting them into the encyclopedia, but not necessarily how. I would like to propose we have a whole new standard WP:Articlability versus Encyclopedic Listablity. So in this current discussion, yes all recipients should be in an encyclopedic list, but only those for which we can write more than they got the award should have an article of their own. Aoziwe (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think all German Knight's Cross holders are at least listable. If multiple sources exist, the RK holder qualifies for an article. It's often overlooked here that it's the sources that matter and not what the person did to get a Knight's Cross. We are also overlooking the files archived in Germany. There are surviving documents that would corroborate secondary sources to establish that a given person did in fact receive an RK. The archives don't cover all RK holders but most are included.
Those opposed to the inclusion of these articles, as I've said, need to consider that German archives contain primary and secondary sources that have never been translated. Probably many of them have never been seen by an English speaker. Many would be in Fraktur or old-style ("Sütterlin") handwriting.
So, if we know that sources are almost certainly available but not in English and not online, we should keep the article, because we know sources to establish notability exist somewhere and can be added to the article later. Roches (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the issue here is the claim that "we know the sources are almost certainly available". Is that really the case, and do these sources really contain sufficient material to make notability stick? As far as I know the special notability rules are put into place to lighten the burden in cases where the sources very likely exist AND do give enough reason to assume notability. In the case of KC (and other often bestowed awards) it is the latter part that is doubted. Arnoutf (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I've made my points many times by now. Articles exist for half of the recipients of one RK and all of the recipients of more than one. Every RK recipient was named on the front page of every German newspaper at least once. It would be original research to decide which RK recipients have enough coverage and which don't, because all have some coverage. Roches (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Fairly bold claim that each and every RK was mentioned on the front page of each and every German newspaper. That includes local newspapers and even (if they existed) underground/resistance newspapers. That also makes the claim that this was the case until the very last awards (May (or even June) 1945) while it might be doubted that there were still any Nazi newspapers around (and would include German newspapers in Allied territory which I somehow doubt to print this on the frontpage). Altogether, extremely bold statements are you sure these can be made? Arnoutf (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here’s interesting math that may be relevant. For the full years that the Oak Leaves were in effect, the following numbers were awarded:
    • 50 in 1941
    • 111 in 1942
    • 192 in 1943
    • 328 in 1944
    • 194 in the first four months of 1945.
The rate of award was almost doubling every year. At the rate the High Command was going, they would have awarded 600 Oak Leaves by the end of 1945, almost as much as in the three preceding years.
It’s unlikely that the German soldiers were getting exponentially braver, or the commanders were getting dramatically more successful in their military leadership (quite the opposite, as the Wehrmacht was retreating on all fronts). I would venture to say that there was certain inflation of the awards as the war progressed, and the Oak Leaves awarded in 1941/42 was quite a different award from the OL in 1944/45. I expect same goes for for the first-time award of the Knight’s Cross. It’s peculiar that a nation in defeat would be so generous with the awards—and probably speaks to the propaganda nature of the mass award program. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Roches: I find your statement that "It would be original research to decide which RK recipients have enough coverage and which don't, because all have some coverage" puzzling. WP:V requires an assessment of source quality and WP:GNG, WP:AFD, etc, require editors to determine whether articles have sufficient coverage available to demonstrate notability, etc. Such source assessment is not considered OR, but rather standard and expected practice. In the case of a fair number of RK recipients, there's currently only passing coverage (eg: someone appearing in RK awardee lists in 5 newspapers and 7 books, but who has no details of why they received their service or any service history other than a brief list of campaigns and medals would not appear to have been demonstrated to meet any notability criteria), and should they happen to be brought to an AFD, if future results are anything like previous ones, would appear likely to receive a delete or redirect result depending on who happens to vote. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Suggestions: Ok, here's a stab at a set of suggestions that may not make anyone particularly overjoyed, but could hopefully find some slightly less miserable middle ground than repeated AFDs or MILHIST discussions:
  1. A page for the RK should be set up at MILHIST with key information on the RK.
  2. Further individual articles (other than possible redirects) for the ~4700 RK recipients (or really any other bulk creation) who have not yet been created should be disallowed under an explicit MILHIST project rule/guideline unless sources are specifically provided which actually show evidence of notability rather than just RK award.
  3. Redirection to some kind of aggregation (whether alphabetical list or service list or embedded in a unit article) should be considered to be acceptable for some subset of RK recipients
  4. A standard format/content expected for encyclopedic lists of RK holders should be determined (noting that there's currently significant variance between what's in various lists, infoboxes, navboxes, etc).
  5. Noting that some of those awarded RKs for leadership, etc, would meet other notability criteria, it would seem that there are certain groups which on balance of probability might be kept as individual article for the moment (possibly a very long moment) without further immediate evidence unless more in-depth sourcing indicates that they actually don't meet notability requirements. This is in no way an ideal solution, or presumptive of notability, just a pragmatic and long-term but temporary way ahead. An explicit set of such Balance of Probability groups should be determined, for instance:
    1. Those whose articles contain more information than just that of a standard boilerplate RK article
    2. Those of low rank (all enlisted personnel, or only lowest levels...?) who can be reasonably presumed to have been awarded it for valour at the highest level rather than leadership or success??
    3. Those who received other medals on the same day as the RK (iron cross + possibly wound badge?)??
    4. Those awarded the RK posthumously??
    5. Those awarded the RK up until ?3 June 1940? (introduction of Oak Leaves)??
    6. Those awarded higher grades for multiple RKs??
    7. ...?
  6. Once explicit criteria for Balance of Probability groups have been specified, editors may choose to do the following (but are not necessarily encouraged to do so):
    1. assess RK articles against those explicit criteria
    2. Note how the article passes/fails each criteria on its talk page - checklist
    3. merge information to aggregate articles/encyclopedic lists per the determined format/content and then redirect (if all criteria failed)
    4. explicitly list this process as having been done at MILHIST with the assessment linked. (if merge/redirect performed)
  7. Editors performing such an assessment must perform it carefully/properly. Repeated failure to perform assessment correctly is grounds for requiring such assessment to cease. Idiosyncratic interpretations and determinations (especially source assessment) are to be avoided.
  8. Assessment of which sources (for instance those listed by MisterBee1966 below) are sufficiently reliable should be sought and considered at MILHIST when assessment of a source is actually needed. A record of RS determinations should be kept, and discussion/determination linked.
  9. An explicit note/link on the RK should be added to WP:SOLDIER#1 (noting that any footnotes might be clearer at the bottom of the section than the bottom of the page with hover)
  10. AFD should be an absolute last resort for any of the RK awardee pages (much less thousands of them).
  11. Balance of Probability criteria (particularly BOP1), and the articles retained under them, could eventually be considered for revisitation/rediscussion if required, but only after all remaining RK articles have either been determined to be notable, have been kept under an initial BOP assessment, or are redirects. There is no particular hurry to get to such a state.
  12. Restoration of redirected pages to a full article should RS evidence of notability be found should of course be considered as expected/desirable.
  13. Detailed discussion and determinations should be moved to MILHIST sometime.
...Some of these suggestions should really go without saying, and those which receive broad in-principle support could have their details thrashed out either by further discussion/consensus or by something more formal. (Those which don't? Well, it was worth a shot) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Might be worth noting here that many KC/RK recipients have a further SOLDIER presumption of notability based on their rank (Generalmajor/Brigadeführer or higher, both were one-star equivalents in WWII) or other criteria such as commanding a division or similar-sized formation (which can apply to officers of the rank of Oberst/Standartenführer on occasion). I would expect any officers of those ranks or higher, or who held such a command, who also received the KC/RK, would be avoided in any system of re-assessment. I agree broadly with the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It is also worth adding that every single German one-star and above of WWII has an entry in Dermot Bradley et al's multi-volume Die Generale des ... 1921–1945, each entry of which covers their military career in some detail over a couple of pages. Add this to the works by Tessin/Nafziger/Mitcham (some of which are in MBs list below) which detail the various commands each general held, including dates of appointment and relief, promotion etc, we can show that we will easily meet the GNG for every one-star, including those that fulfilled senior staff and other non-command roles, even those that were directors of branches of governmental departments that held one-star equivalent ranks. What this reinforces is that when we are looking at KC recipients, we can set to one side from the start all those that reached the rank of Generalmajor/Brigadeführer or above. Given this, tagging of articles for notability when they are about general officers awarded the KC is a fatuous practice that demonstrates a total lack of good faith. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm on board with the suggestions above. My one comment would be not to take the list below at face value (sources used by Scherzer), as it includes several non RS (i.e. Patrick Agte). Many writers and historians use unreliable sources, either to make a point (by comparing & contrasting) or because they have the resources to cross check them with reliable information, such as archival data.
What would be the possible next steps? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing approaching a consensus for such action here. On top of that, you are not taking into account the biographical information on each recipient in the multi-volume works by Thomas, Wegmann and Dorr which are listed below. They are in German and not available in even snippet view on Google Books, yet they have an entry on all these people, organised into volumes for infantry, parachute, mountain troops, assault guns etc. Then there are volumes by other authors like Range and Patzwall that provide biographical details on all the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine recipients. Then there are books by some authors focussing on recipients from different regions of Germany, like the Saarland, or others focussing on the recipients of the Oak Leaves. I just don't think a blanket approach to this issue is appropriate. More than likely all the recipients have biographical details in one or more of the books below, we just don't necessarily have access to them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I must have misunderstood the statement above "I agree broadly with the above." What was it referring to? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so in summary - I think we all agree that there are overviews of people who were awarded the medal. That these overviews in themselves are reliable sources even though they are not available online and not in English. That still leave open the question to me, whether inclusion in such an overview in itself indicates notability. In fact many people are reliably sourced in phonebooks but that does not make them notable per se (see: WP:NOTDIR). Arnoutf (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Arnoutf But the books I am referring to above aren't like a phonebook at all (unlike some listings of KC recipients such as Scherzer and similar). They have biographical details, place and date of birth and death, career information including training courses attended and posting history, dates of promotions, dates of awards, photographs of the recipient etc. Rather like the expectations we have of bio articles. Far more information than a source that says they were awarded the KC on a given date and what their posting was at the time of the award. They run to several pages on each recipient. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not saying that the material from these sources is irrelevant. The point I want to make is that the mere inclusion in some kind of listing (regardless of the amount of detail) in itself does not give sufficient grounds for notability. Criminal records, for example, also give a lot of detail, but do not in themselves are sufficient reason for assuming notability. Once notability has been agreed upon, these sources are obviously of high value to pull relevant information from. Arnoutf (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
But surely we are talking about whether these people meet GNG? The fact that there is at least one source which provides extensive biographical information about each recipient (plus multiple sources that mention the recipient's highest award at least in passing) must surely be grounds for considering that they meet the GNG, let alone SOLDIER? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The number of sources does not really matter, if the claim to notability is based on only one even (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event). And indeed, that brings us back to the earlier discussion whether frequently awarded highest awards imply the same level of notability as rarely awarded highest awards. In my view the discussion about sources above (and below) does not add beyond the arguments already given (and the compromise to largely leave as is now). Arnoutf (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I am able to see a preview from Franz Thomas & Günter Wegmann: please see Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945 (sample), plus another one. I can see that the listing includes the awards and dates of ranks. This source is already being used in the related articles to substantiate the various awards, such as here: Alfred Montag. I don't believe the content from Thomas & Wegman is indeed "biographical sketches" sufficient to meet GNG & produce an encyclopedia entry. Separate sources may be available for those who received the second award (Oak Leaves), but they are not being considered as part of this discussion as I understand. Ping @Arnoutf and Peacemaker67: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hardly more than a phonebook listing. In fact, even the information of a clearly notable awardee like Heinz Guderian is hardlt more than a listing [3]. Seems relevant to source some details, but not really more (including assessing notability). Arnoutf (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
That snippet (not preview) for Barmetler hardly shows anything about the information provided in that book. Each recipient has a "pen picture" of their career, plus a list of dates of promotions, list of dates of awards, plus photographs, obviously the amount of detail varies. As I said, not available in preview (and snippet view is very misleading). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: One can sometimes search using a distinctive phrase found in snippet view, and then bridge to another distinctive phrase to extend one's view. It's a tedious jigsaw of variable reliability and limited scope that's rarely recommended even if a native speaker. For instance this extends to this (Kreta, Raum Malames appears to be the paratroop landing at the start of the Battle of Crete) extends to this extends to this to this and so on. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: the above German text sounds like it could be the award citations: German: "Am 25. 5. erkannte Oberleutnant Barmetler, daß die rechts von seiner Kompanie gegen die Höhen von Galatas vorgehenden Gebirgsjäger nicht vorwärts kamen. Bevor der Befehl des Bataillons-Kommandeurs, ..." English: "On 25 5. Lieutenant Barmetler recognized that the foregoing right of his company to the heights of Galatas Mountaineer did not come forward. Before the command of the battalion commander ..." The citation (if this is it) plus the list of dates of promotions, list of dates of awards, photographs looks to be WP:ROUTINE coverage for a Knight's Cross winner, and BIO1E still applies.
This aligns with what MrBee is stating below: "Authors such as Dörr, Thomas and Wegmann provide a detailed coverage of the military career based on the military records of the German National Archives. This information includes trainings, units assigned to and commands held and date of promotions and other awards presented. In many instances, if this information was not lost, they also state who, for what actions, and who approved the nomination of the KC." This is looks more like a directory listing and is not sufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it does. You are trying to use snippet view to discount a source you haven't seen. I have sourced copies of a few entries from Dörr, Thomas and Wegmann's books for bio articles, and the ones I have are far more extensive than what you suggest. It is quite a reasonable assumption that Dörr, Thomas and Wegmann provide significant coverage of each recipient, and many have coverage in other books such as the directory style of Von Seemen etc and other books about their units etc. Frankly, you're grasping at straws here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that an entry in the KC winners' catalogue by someone who's not trained as a historian (as I understand) is significant RS coverage. The other trivial mentions such as by Fellgiebel and Scherzer are part of the WP:ROUTINE coverage that's expected in WP:BIO1E situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Then we disagree. You haven't seen the source in question (except in snippet view), and you have produced nothing that questions the reliability of the authors or the publishing house. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

About the source (from below, emphasis mine): Authors such as Dörr, Thomas and Wegmann provide a detailed coverage of the military career based on the military records of the German National Archives. This information includes trainings, units assigned to and commands held and date of promotions and other awards presented. In many instances, if this information was not lost, they also state who, for what actions, and who approved the nomination of the KC.

This does not sound like "significant coverage" to me; this is still BLP1E situation and a brief bio, using which would result in a WP:PSEUDO biography. At this AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Beck) this source was deemed insufficient not just by myself.

Separately, I've seen Thomas and Wegmann used in dozens of articles to cite various awards, but I don't recall seeing them cited for biographical data. See, for example: Clemens-Heinrich Graf von Kageneck, Kurt Albrecht or Felix Adamowitsch.

Collection of materials by Charles Hamilton's Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich does include information on low-ranking soldiers; see for example this edit on the Heinrich Debus article.

The fact is that Thomas & Wegmann were put forth as the best sources available, but even if they were produced, that still does not overcome BIO1E situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You continue to argue this, when you haven't seen the sources themselves. Of course the amount of detail varies, but from what I've seen of the source(s), there is more than enough for GNG. I really think you should drop the stick. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The main line of argumentation restricting the listings on Wikipedia is very consistent and is oriented along the following line of though. According to WP:SOLDIER which states "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 current focus of this discussion is what constitutes significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources? Apparently some people think that the quality and quantity of the sources mentioned here are insufficient to meet this criterion. Taking this line of thought further, this criterion is not only applicable to the recipients of the Knight's Cross, but is also applicable to the recipients of the Hero of the Soviet Union, Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross. To have received such an award is only an indication that the individual may be notable; notability is not derived from the presentation of an award itself but rather from the significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources in the aftermaths. By that token, many of the Medal of Honor recipients of the American Civil War (such as James F. Adams) would also have to be deleted from Wikipedia because the available sources are similar in nature and quantity to those mentioned here in context of Knight's Cross. If the suggested approach is consequently followed through, I would expect to see many more, and not just German, articles being deleted from Wikipedia. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

German sources referenced by Veit Scherzer

In addition to the German National Archive, Scherzer makes use of following books (see below). In addition to information pertaining to the KC, Scherzer provides information on date and place of birth, and if applicable states date and place of death. He also provides information on final rank in the Wehrmacht, and Bundeswehr or Austrian Army (if applicable). Authors such as Dörr, Thomas and Wegmann provide a detailed coverage of the military career based on the military records of the German National Archives. This information includes trainings, units assigned to and commands held and date of promotions and other awards presented. In many instances, if this information was not lost, they also state who, for what actions, and who approved the nomination of the KC. I hope this info helps this decision process. Maybe not every listing below meets the standards of Wikipedia. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Rudolf ABSOLON, Die Wehrmacht im Dritten Reich, 1. September 1939 bis 18. Dezember 1941 (Schriften des Bundesarchivs, Band 16/V) Boppard am Rhein 1995.
  • Rudolf ABSOLON, Die Wehrmacht im Dritten Reich, 19. Dezember 1941 bis 9. Mai 1945 (Schriften des Bundesarchivs, Band 16/W) Boppard am Rhein 1995.
  • Rudolf ABSOLON, Wehrgesetz und Wehrdienst 19354945. Das Personalwesen in der Wehrmacht (Schriften des Bundesarchivs, Band 5) Boppard am Rhein 1969.
  • Rudolf ABSOLON (Bearb.), Rangliste der Generale der Deutschen Luftwaffe nach dem Stand vom 20. April 1945. Mit einer Stellenbesetzung der Kommandobehörden der Luftwaffe vom 1. März 1945, Dienstalterslisten der Sanitätsoffiziere usw. im Generalsrang sowie Kurzbiographien über den Reichsmarschall und die Generalfeldmarschälle, Friedberg 1984.
  • Patrick AGTE, Europas Freiwillige der Waffen-SS. Biographien aller Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes, des Deutschen Kreuzes in Gold, der Ehrenblattspange und der Nahkampfspange in Gold, die keine Deutschen waren, o. 0. [Pluwig], 2000.
  • Karl ALMANN, Mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern. Der Lebensweg von 19 Soldaten, die mit den Schwertern zum Ritterkreuz ausgezeichnet wurden, Rastatt 1971.
  • Karl ALMANN u. a., Einzelkämpfer. Portraits hochausgezeichneter deutscher Soldaten, Rastatt 1967.
  • Uwe BAHNSEN und James P. O'DONELL, Die Katakombe. Das Ende in der Reichskanzlei, Bergisch Gladbach 1982.
  • Florian BERGER - unter Mitarbeit von Christian HABISOHN, Ritterkreuzträger im österreichischen Bundesheer 1955-1985, Wien 2003.
  • Florian BERGER und Christian HABISOHN, Max Zastrow. Der Gefreite mit dem Ritterkreuz, Wien 2003.
  • Florian BERGER und Christian HABISOHN, Ritterkreuzträger mit Nahkampfspange in Gold, Wien 2004.
  • Gerhard BOLDT, Hitler. Die letzten zehn Tage, Frankfurt/M. - Berlin 1973.
  • Dermot BRADLEY, Karl-Friedrich HILDEBRAND, Markus RÖVEKAMP, Die Generale des Heeres 1921-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Generale, sowie der Ärzte, Veterinäre, Intendanten, Richter und Ministerialbeamten im Generalsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. v. Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band IV/1 Abberger - Bitthorn) Osnabrück 1993.
  • Dermot BRADLEY, Karl-Friedrich HILDEBRAND, Markus RÖVEKAMP, Die Generale des Heeres 1921-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Generale, sowie der Arzte, Veterinäre, Intendanten, Richter und Ministerialbeamten im Generalsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. v. Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band IV/2 v. Blanckensee - v. Cettritz und Neuhauß) Osnabrück 1993.
  • Dermot BRADLEY, Karl-Friedrich HILDEBRAND, Markus RÖVEKAMP, Die Generale des Heeres 1921-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Generale, sowie der Ärzte, Veterinäre, Intendanten, Richter und Ministerialbeamten im Generalsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. v. Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band IV/3 Dahlmann - Fitzlaff) Osnabrück 1994.
  • Dermot BRADLEY, Karl-Friedrich HILDEBRAND, Markus RÖVEKAMP, Die Generale des Heeres 1921-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Generale, sowie der Ärzte, Veterinäre, Intendanten, Richter und Ministerialbeamten im Generalsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. v. Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band IV/4 Fleck - Gyldenfeldt) Osnabrück 1996.
  • Dermot BRADLEY, Karl-Friedrich HILDEBRAND, Markus BROCKMANN, Die Generale des Heeres 1921-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Generale sowie der Ärzte, Veterinäre, Intendanten, Richter und Ministerialbeamten im Generalsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. v. Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band IV/5 v. Haack - Hitzfeld) Osnabrück 1999.
  • Dermot BRADLEY (Hrsg.), Die Generale des Heeres 1921-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Generale, sowie der Ärzte, Veterinäre, Intendanten, Richter und Ministerialbeamten im Generalsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. Dermot Bradley, Band IV/6 v. Hochbaum - Klutman) Bissendorf 2002.
  • Dermot BRADLEY (Hrsg.), Die Generale des Heeres 1921-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Generale, sowie der Ärzte, Veterinäre, Intendanten, Richter und Ministerialbeamten im Generalsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admiral; hg. v. Dermot Bradley, Band IV/7 Knabe - Luz) Bissendorf 2004.
  • Das Ritterkreuz. Mitteilungsblatt der Ordensgemeinschaft der Ritterkreuzträger e.V., 1956 ff.
  • Die Luftwaffenrangliste 1945, Norderstedt 1986.
  • Dienstaltersliste der Waffen-SS. SS-Obergruppenführer bis SS-Hauptsturmführer, Stand vom 1. Juli 1944, neu hg. von Brün Meyer, Osnabrück 1987.
  • Wolfgang DIERICH, Die Verbände der Luftwaffe 1935-1945. Gliederungen und Kurzchroniken. Eine Dokumentation unter Mitarbeit der Männer aller Truppenteile der Luftwaffe und der Stiftung "Luftwaffenehrenmal e. V.", Zweibrücken 1993.
  • Bernd DIROLL, Hamburger Ritterkreuzträger 1939-1945, Hamburg 1984.
  • Dr. Heinrich DOEHLE, Die Auszeichnungen des Großdeutschen Reichs. Orden, Ehrenzeichen, Abzeichen, Berlin 1943.
  • Manfred DÖRR, Die Ritterkreuzträger der U-Boot-Waffe (Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht, hg. v. Franz Thomas u. Günter Wegmann, Band IV/1 u. Band IV/2) Osnabrück 1988-1989.
  • Manfred DÖRR, Die Ritterkreuzträger der Oberwasserstreitkräfte der Kriegsmarine (Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht, hg. v. Franz Thomas u. Gunter Wegmann, Band VII/1 u. Band VII/2) Osnabrück 1995-1996.
  • Manfred DÖRR, Die Träger der Nahkampfspange in Gold. Heer-Luftwaffe-Waffen-SS 1943-1945, Osnabrück 1988.
  • Henrik EBERLE und Matthias UHL (Hg.), Das Buch Hitler, Geheimdossier des NKWD fiir Josef W. Stalin, zusammengestellt aufgrund der Verhörprotokolle des Persönlichen Adjutanten Hitlers, Otto Günsche, und des Kammerdieners Heinz Linge, Moskau 1948/49, Bergisch-Gladbach 2005.
  • Walther-Peer FELLGIEBEL, Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939-1945. Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile, Friedberg/H. 1986.
  • Walther-Peer FELLGIEBEL, Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939-1945. Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile, Ergänzungsband, Friedberg/H. 1988.
  • Günter FRASCHKA, ...mit Schwertern und Brillanten. Aus dem Leben der siebenundzwanzig Träger der höchsten deutschen Tapferkeitsauszeichnung, Rastatt 1961.
  • Harald GEIBLER, Das Eiserne Kreuz - 1813 bis heute, Norderstedt 1995.
  • Günther W. GELLERMAN, Die Armee Wenck. Hitlers letzte Hoffnung, Koblenz 1990.
  • Bernd GERICKE, Die Inhaber des Deutschen Kreuzes in Gold, des Deutschen Kreuzes in Silber der Kriegsmarine und die Inhaber der Ehrentafelspange der Kriegsmarine, Osnabrück 1993.
  • Georg GUNTER, Letzter Lorbeer, Vorgeschichte und Geschichte der Kämpfe in Oberschlesien von Januar bis Mai 1945 (39. Veröffentlichung der Oberschlesischen Studienhilfe e.V.) Darmstadt und Augsburg 1974.
  • Norbert HAASE, Das Reichskriegsgericht und der Widerstand gegen die nationalsozialistische Herrschaft: Katalog zur Sonderausstellung der Gedenkstatte Deutscher Widerstand/in Zusammenarbeit mit der Neuen Richtervereinigung. Hrsg. von der Gedenkstatte Deutscher Widerstand, Berlin 1993.
  • HDv 3/1 Heer und Marine, Militärstrafgesetzbuch (MStGB) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 16.6.1926 (Reichsgesetzbl. I S. 275), des Gesetzes vom 26.5.1933 Artikel II (Reichsgesetzbl. I S. 297) und des Gesetzes vom 23.11.1934 Artikel 1 (Reichsgesetzbl. I S. 1165) sowie des Gesetzes vom 16.7.1935 (Reichsgesetzbl. I S. 1021), § 30, Berlin 1935.
  • Helmut HEIBER (Hrsg.) Lagebesprechungen im Führerhauptquartier. Protokollfragmente aus Hitlers militärischen Konferenzen 1942-1945, neu bearbeitete und kommentierte Ausgabe München 1963.
  • Hans H. HILDEBRAND und Ernest HENRIOT, Deutschlands Admirale 1849-1945. Die militärischen Werdegange der See-, Ingenieur-, Sanitäts-, Waffen- und Verwaltungsoffiziere im Admiralsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. von Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band I/1: A-G) Osnabrück 1988.
  • Hans H. HILDEBRAND und Ernest HENRIOT, Deutschlands Admirale 1849-1945. Die militärischen Werdegange der See-, Ingenieur-, Sanitäts-, Waffen- und Verwaltungsoffiziere im Admiralsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. von Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band 1/2: H-O) Osnabrück 1989.
  • Hans H. HILDEBRAND und Ernest HENRIOT, Deutschlands Admirale 1849-1945. Die militärischen Werdegange der See-, Ingenieur-, Sanitäts-, Waffen- und Verwaltungsoffiziere im Admiralsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. von Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band 1/3: P-Z) Osnabrück 1990.
  • Hans H. HILDEBRAND und Ernest HENRIOT (t), Deutschlands Admirale 1849-1945. Die militärischen Werdegange der See-, Ingenieur-, Sanitäts-, Waffen- und Verwaltungsoffiziere im Admiralsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. von Dermot Bradley, Band 1/4 Marinebeamte im Admiralsrang, Anhang: à la suite der Marine gestellte Persönlichkeiten und Nachtrage zu den Bänden 1-3) Osnabrück 1996.
  • Karl Friedrich HILDEBRAND, Die Generale der deutschen Luftwaffe 1935-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Flieger-, Flakartillerie-, Fallschirmjäger-, Luftnachrichten- und Ingenieur-Offiziere einschließlich der Arzte, Richter, Intendanten und Ministerialbeamtem im Generalsrang. Mit Einführung in die Entwicklung und Organisation der Luftwaffe (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. von Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band II/1 Abernetty - v. Gyldenfeldt) Osnabrück 1990.
  • Karl Friedrich HILDEBRAND, Die Generale der deutschen Luftwaffe 1935-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Flieger-, Flakartillerie-, Fallschirmjäger-, Luftnachrichten- und Ingenieur-Offiziere einschließlich der Arzte, Richter, Intendanten und Ministerialbeamtem irn Generalsrang. Mit Einführung in die Entwicklung und Organisation der Luftwaffe (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. von Dermot Bradley und Markus Rövekamp, Band II/2 Habermehl - Nuber) Osnabrück 1991.
  • Karl Friedrich HILDEBRAND, Die Generale der deutschen Luftwaffe 1935-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Flieger-, Flakartillerie-, Fallschirmjäger-, Luftnachrichten- und Ingenieur-Offiziere einschließlich der Arzte, Richter, Intendanten und Ministerialbeamtem irn Generalsrang. Mit Einführung in die Entwicklung und Organisation der Luftwaffe (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. von Dermot Bradley und Markus Rovekamp, Band II/3 Odebrecht - Zoch, Mit Berichtigungen und Ergänzungen zu Band 1-3) Osnabrück 1992.
  • Friedrich HUSEMANN, Die guten Glaubens waren. Geschichte der SS-Polizei-Division (4. SS-Polizei-Panzer-Grenadier-Division) Band 2: 1943-1945, Osnabrück 1973.
  • David IRVING, Hitlers Krieg. Götterdämmerung 1942-1945, München - Berlin 1986. David IRVING, Rommel. Eine Biographie, Lizenzausgabe Augsburg 1990.
  • Norbert KANNAPIN, Die deutsche Feldpostübersicht 939-1945. Vollständiges Verzeichnis der Feldpostnummern in numerischer Folge und deren Ausschlüsselung. Bearbeitet nach den im Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv verwahrten Unterlagen des Heeresfeldpostmeisters, Band 1 Nm. 00001 bis 20308, Osnabrück 1980.
  • Norbert KANNAPIN, Die deutsche Feldpostübersicht 939-1945. Vollständiges Verzeichnis der Feldpostnummern in numerischer Folge und deren Ausschlüsselung. Bearbeitet nach den im Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv verwahrten Unterlagen des Heeresfeldpostmeisters, Band 2 Nrn. 20309 bis 41991, Osnabrück 1981.
  • Norbert KANNAPIN, Die deutsche Feldpostübersicht 1939-1945. Vollständiges Verzeichnis der Feldpostnummern in numerischer Folge und deren Ausschlüsselung. Bearbeitet nach den im Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv verwahrten Unterlagen des Heeresfeldpostmeisters, Band 3 Nm. 41992 bis 87919, Osnabrück 1982.
  • Wolf KEILIG, Das Deutsche Heer 1939-1945. Gliederung-Einsatz-Stellenbesetzung, Loseblattsammlung, Bad Nauheim 1956.
  • Wolf KEILIG, Rangliste des Deutschen Heeres 1944/45, Dienstalterslisten T und S der Generale und Stabsoffiziere des Heeres vom 1. Mai 1944 mit amtlich belegbaren Nachtragen bis Kriegsende und Stellenbesetzung der höheren Kommandobehörden und Divisionen des Deutschen Heeres am 10. Juni 1944, Friedberg o. J.
  • Wolf KEILIG, Die Generale des Heeres. Truppenoffiziere, Sanitätsoffiziere im Generalsrang, Waffenoffiziere im Generalsrang, Offiziere der Kraftfahrparktruppe im Generalsrang, Ingenieur-Offiziere im Generalsrang, Wehrmachtrichter im Generalsrang, Verwaltungsoffiziere im Generalsrang, Veterinäroffiziere im Generalsrang, Friedberg 1983.
  • Albert KESSELRING, Soldat bis zum letzten Tag, Bonn 1953.
  • Horst-Adalbert KOCH, Flak. Die Geschichte der Deutschen Flakartillerie und der Einsatz der Luftwaffenhelfer, unter Mitwirkung von Steuerberater Dr. Heinz Schindler, ehem. Luftwaffenoberhelfer und Archivrat a. D. Dr. Georg Tessin, Bundesarchiv (Militärarchiv) Bad Nauheim 1965.
  • Karl KOLLER, Der letzte Monat. Die Tagebuchaufzeichnungen des ehemaligen Chefs des Generalstabes der Luftwaffe vom 14. April bis zum 27. Mai 1945, Mannheim 1949.
  • Ernst-Gunther KRÄTSCHMER, Die Ritterkreuzträger der Waffen-SS, Preua Oldendorf 31982.
  • Franz KUROWSKI, Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes der U-Bootwaffe 1939-1945, Friedberg/H. 1987.
  • Franz KUROWSKI, Ritterkreuzträger des Afrikakorps, Rastatt o.J. 1986
  • Erwin LENFELD und Franz THOMAS, Die Eichenlaubträger 1940-1945, Wiener Neustadt 1983.
  • Walter LÜDDE-NEURATH, Regierung Dönitz. Die letzten Tage des Dritten Reiches, Schnellbach 1999.
  • Kurt MEHNER, Die Deutsche Wehrmacht 1939-1945. Führung und Truppe, Norderstedt 1993.
  • Kurt MEHNER (Hrsg.), Die Waffen-SS und Polizei 1939-1945 (Schriftenreihe Führung und Truppe Band 3) Norderstedt 1995.
  • Kurt MEHNER und Reinhard TEUBER (Hrsg.) Die Deutsche Luftwaffe 1939-1945. Führung und Truppe, Norderstedt 1993.
  • Hanns MÖLLER-WITTEN, Ritterkreuzträger erzählen, München 1959.
  • Hanns MÖLLER-WITFEN, Mit dem Eichenlaub zum Ritterkreuz. Aus dem Leben von zwanzig vorbildlichen Soldaten, Rastatt 1962.
  • Willi MUES, Der Grosse Kessel. Eine Dokumentation fiber das Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges zwischen Lippe und Ruhr/Sieg und Lenne, Erwitte 1996.
  • Erich MURAWSKI, Der deutsche Wehrmachtbericht 1939-1945. Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung der geistigen Kriegführung, Mit einer Dokumentation der Wehrmachtberichte vom 1.7.1944 bis zum 9.5.1945 (Schriften des Bundesarchivs 9) Boppard am Rhein 1962.
  • Gerd NIETRUG, Die Ritterkreuztrager des Saarlandes 1939-1945, Zweibrücken 2004.
  • Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939-1945, unveränderter photomechanischer Nachdruck, München 1985.
  • Ernst OBERMAIER, Die Ritterkreuzträger der Luftwaffe. Stuka- und Schlachtflieger 1939-1945, Mainz 1988.
  • Ernst OBERMAIER, Die Ritterkreuzträger der Luftwaffe. Jagdflieger 1939-1945, Mainz 1989.
  • Klaus D. PATZWALL, Die Auszeichnungen der Kriegsmarine 1939-1945. Unter Berücksichtigung der Handelsmarine, Norderstedt 1987.
  • Klaus D. PATZWALL, Die Ritterkreuztrager des Kriegsverdienstkreuzes 1942-1945. Eine Dokumentation in Wort und Bild, Hamburg 1984.
  • Klaus PATZWALL und Veit SCHERZER, Das Deutsche Kreuz 1941.1945. Geschichte und Inhaber, Band II, Norderstedt 2001.
  • Wolfgang PAUL, Der Endkampf um Deutschland, Esslingen am Necker, 1978.
  • H.H. PODZUN (Hrsg.) Das Deutsche Heer 1939, Gliederung, Standorte, Stellenbesetzung und Verzeichnis sämtlicher Offiziere am 3.1.1939, Bad Nauheim 1953.
  • A. PRAUN, Soldat in der Telegrafen- und Nachrichtentruppe, Würzburg 1965.
  • Nikolaus v. PRERADOVICH, Die Generale der Waffen-SS, Berg am See 1985.
  • Clemens RANGE, Die Ritterkreuzträger der Kriegsmarine, Stuttgart 1974.
  • Clemens RANGE und Andreas DÜFEL, Die Ritterkreuzträger in der Bundeswehr, Suderburg 2002.
  • Regimentskameradschaft DF, Unsere Ritterkreuzträger, o.0. [Aalen], o.J. [1987?].
  • Ralf Georg REUTH, Goebbels. Eine Biographie, München 1995.
  • Adolf SCHLICHT und John R. ANGOLIA, Die Deutsche Wehrmacht, Uniformierung und Ausrüstung 1933-1945, Band 1 Das Heer, Stuttgart 1992.
  • Percy E. SCHRAMM (Hrsg.): Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Wehrmachtführungsstab) 1944-1945, Teilband II, München 1982.
  • Veit SCHERZER, Die Träger des Deutschen Kreuzes in Gold der Luftwaffe 1941-1945, Bayreuth 1992.
  • Veit SCHERZER, Die Inhaber der Anerkennungsurkunde des Oberbefehlshabers des Heeres für Flugzeugabschüsse 1941-1945, Burgstadt Ranis 1994.
  • Joachim SCHULTZ-NAUMANN, Die letzten dreißig Tage. Das Kriegstagebuch des OKW April bis Mai 1945, München 1980.
  • Andreas SCHULZ und Gunter WEGMANN, Die Generale der Waffen-SS und Polizei 1933-1945. Die militärischen Werdegänge der Generale, sowie der Ärzte, Veterinäre, Intendanten, Richter und Ministerialbeamten im Generalsrang (Deutschlands Generale und Admirale, hg. v. Dermot Bradley, Band V/1 Abraham - Gutenberger) Bissendorf 2003.
  • Gerhard VON SEEMEN, Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939-1945, Bad Nauheim 1955.
  • Gerhard VON SEEMEN, Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939-1945, Friedberg 1976.
  • Helmuth SPAETER und Wilhelm Ritter VON SCHRAMM, Die Geschichte des Panzerkorps Großdeutschland, III. Band, Duisburg-Ruhrort 1958.
  • Helmuth SPAETER, Panzerkorps Großdeutschland. Panzergrenadier-Division Großdeutschland, Panzergrenadier-Division Brandenburg und seine Schwesterverbände, Führer-Grenadier-Division, Führer-Begleit-Division, Panzergrenadier-Division Kurmark und ihre 108 Träger des Ritterkreuzes, Bilddokumentation, Friedberg 1984.
  • SS-Personalhauptamt (Hrsg.), Dienstaltersliste der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP (SS-Obersturmbannführer und SS-Sturmbannführer) Stand vom 1. Oktober 1944, Berlin 1944, Reprint Vaduz 1985.
  • SS-Personalhauptamt (Hrsg.), Dienstaltersliste der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP (SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer - SS-Standartenführer) Stand vom 9. November 1944, Berlin 1944, Reprint Vaduz 1985.
  • Generalleutnant a. D. Friedrich STAHL (Hrsg.), Heereseinteilung 1939.. Gliederung, Standorte, Kommandeure sämtlicher Einheiten und Dienststellen des Friedensheeres am 3.1.1939 und die Kriegsgliederung vom 1.9.1939, Friedberg o. J.
  • Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, SUCHDIENST (Hrsg.), Vermißtenbildliste Band I, Leitverzeichnis FPN 00 001 - 27 500, München 1959 und 1960.
  • Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, SUCHDIENST (Hrsg.), Vermißtenbildliste Band II, Leitverzeichnis FPN 27 501 - 123 321, München 1959 und 1960.
  • Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, SUCHDIENST (Hrsg.), Vermißtenbildliste Band HI, Leitverzeichnis, Heer Teil I, München 1959 und 1960.
  • Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, SUCHDIENST (Hrsg.), Vermißtenbildliste Band IV, Leitverzeichnis, Heer Tell II und übrige Wehrmacht, München 1959 und 1960.
  • Ralph TEGETHOFF, Die Ritterkreuzträger des Panzerkorps Großdeutschland und seiner Schwesterverbände, Riesa 2004.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Erster Band: Die Waffengattungen - Gesamtübersicht, Osnabrück 1979.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Zweiter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 1-5, Osnabrück 1973.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Dritter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 6-14, Osnabrück 1974.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Vierter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 15-30, Osnabrück 1976.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Fünfter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 31-70, Osnabrück 1977.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises fiir Wehrforschung, Sechster Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 71-130, Osnabrück 1979.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Siebter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 131-200, Osnabrück 1979.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Achter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 201-280, Osnabrück 1979.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Neunter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 281-370, Osnabrück 1974.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Zehnter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 371-500, Osnabrück 1975.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Elfter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 501-630, Osnabrück 21980.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Zwölfter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 631-800, Osnabrück 1975.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Dreizehnter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte 801-13400, Osnabrück 1976.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Unterlagen des Bundesarchiv-Militärarchivs; herausgegeben mit Unterstützung des Bundesarchivs und des Arbeitskreises für Wehrforschung, Vierzehnter Band: Die Landstreitkräfte: Namens verbände/Die Luftstreitkräfte (Fliegende Verbände)/Flakeinsatz im Reich 1943-1945, Osnabrück 1980.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Sechzehnter Band: Verzeichnis der Friedensgarnisonen 1932-1939 und Stationierungen im Kriege 1939-1945, bearb. von Christian Zweng, 1. Heer 1932-1945; Erdkampfverbande der Luftwaffe, Landgestützte Kriegsmarine, 2. Luftwaffe mit fliegenden Verbanden, Bodenorganisation, Flak, Luftnachrichtentruppe, 3. Waffen-SS; SS/Polizei, Allgemeine SS und Landespolizei 1933-1945, 4. Reicharbeitsdienst, Tell 1, Wehrkreise I-VI, Osnabrück 1996.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Sechzehnter Band: Verzeichnis der Friedensgarnisonen 1932-1939 und Stationierungen im Kriege 1939-1945, bearb. von Christian Zweng, 1. Heer 1932-1945; Erdkampfverbande der Luftwaffe, Landgestutzte Kriegsmarine, 2. Luftwaffe mit fliegenden Verbanden, Bodenorganisation, Flak, Luftnachrichtentruppe, 3. Waffen-SS; SS/Polizei, Allgemeine SS und Landespolizei 1933-1945, 4. Reicharbeitsdienst, Tell 2, Wehrkreise VII-XIII, Osnabrück 1996.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Sechzehnter Band: Verzeichnis der Friedensgarnisonen 1932-1939 und Stationierungen im Kriege 1939-1945, bearb. von Christian Zweng, 1. Heer 1932-1945; Erdkampfverbande der Luftwaffe, Landgestutzte Kriegsmarine, 2. Luftwaffe mit fliegenden Verbanden, Bodenorganisation, Flak, Luftnachrichtentruppe, 3. Waffen-SS; SS/Polizei, Allgemeine SS und Landespolizei 1933-1945, 4. Reicharbeitsdienst, Teil 3, Wehrkreise XVII, XVIII, XX, XXI und besetzte Gebiete Ost und Südost, Osnabrück 1996.
  • Georg TESSIN, Verbände and Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. Sechzehnter Band: Verzeichnis der Friedensgarnisonen 1932-1939 und Stationierungen im Kriege 1939-1945, bearb. von Christian Zweng, 1. Heer 1932-1945; Erdkampfverbande der Luftwaffe, Landgestützte Kriegsmarine, 2. Luftwaffe mit fliegenden Verbanden, Bodenorganisation, Flak, Luftnachrichtentruppe, 3. Waffen-SS; SS/Polizei, Allgemeine SS und Landespolizei 1933-1945, 4. Reicharbeitsdienst, Teil 4, Besetzt Gebiete Nord/West/Süd, Osnabrück 1997.
  • Reinhard TEUBER, Die Bundeswehr 1955-1995 (Schriftenreihe Führung und Truppe, hg. von Kurt Mehner und Reinhard Teuber, Band 5) Norderstedt 1996.
  • Tony LE TISSIER, Der Kampf um Berlin 1945. Von den Seelower Hohen zur Reichskanzlei, Frankfurt/M. - Berlin 1991.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Teil I Sturmartillerie, Osnabrück 1985.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Teil II Die Ritterkreuzträger der Fallschirmjäger, Osnabrück 1986.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Tell III Die Ritterkreuzträger der Infanterie, Band 1: A-Be, Osnabrück 1987.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Teil III Die Ritterkreuzträger der Infanterie, Band 2: Bi-Bo, Osnabrück 1992.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Tell III Die Ritterkreuzträger der Infanterie, Band 3: Br-Bu, Osnabrück 1993.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Tell III Die Ritterkreuzträger der Infanterie, Band 4: C-Dow, Osnabrück 1998.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Teil III Die Ritterkreuzträger der Infanterie, Band 5: Dra-Emm, Osnabrück 2000.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Teil III Die Ritterkreuzträger der Infanterie, Band 6: En-Fi, Bissendorf 2003.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Teil V Die Ritterkreuzträger der Flugabwehrtruppe, Band 1: A-K, Osnabrück 1991.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Teil V Die Ritterkreuzträger der Flugabwehrtruppe, Band 2: L-Z, Osnabrück 1991.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Tell V Die Ritterkreuzträger der Gebirgstruppe, Band 1: A-K, Osnabrück 1994.
  • Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945, Tell V Die Ritterkreuzträger der Gebirgstruppe, Band 2: L-Z, Osnabrück 1994.
  • Othmar TUIDER, Die Luftwaffe in Osterreich 1938 - 1945 (Herausgeber Heeresgeschichtliches Museum - Militärwissenschaftliches Institut, Militärhistorische Schriftenreihe Heft 54), Wien 1985.
  • Gerd R. UEBERSCHAR, Der "Ehrenhof" nach dem Attentat auf Hitler vom 20. Juli 1944, in: Die Angeklagten des 20. Juli vor dem Volksgerichtshof, hrsg. von Bengst von zur Mühlen unter Mitarbeit von Andreas von Klewitz, Berlin-Kleinmachnow 2001.
  • Walter WARLIMONT, Im Hauptquartier der deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945. Grundlagen-Formen-Gestalten, Augsburg 1990.
  • Günter WEGMANN, Die Ritterkreuzträger der Panzertruppe (Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht, hg. v. Gunter Wegmann, Band VIII a/1) Bissendorf 2004.
  • Günter WIESINGER und Walter SCHROEDER, Die österreichischen Ritterkreuzträger in der Luftwaffe 1939-1945, Graz 1986.
  • Wolfgang WERTHEN, Geschichte der 16. Panzer-Division 1939-1945, Bad Nauheim 1958.
  • Christian ZWENG (Hrsg.) Die Dienstlaufbahnen der Offiziere des Generalstabes des deutschen Heeres 1935-1945 nach dem Stand vom 1.9.44 aufgrund der Handliste des Heeres-Personalamtes mit Ergänzungen und Fortführung bis 1945 sowie mit einer Liste der Offiziere, die bis zum 31.8.1944 aus dem Generalstab ausgeschieden sind, Band 1 A-K, Osnabrück 1995.
  • Christian ZWENG (Hrsg.) Die Dienstlaufbahnen der Offiziere des Generalstabes des deutschen Heeres 1935-1945 nach dem Stand vom 1.9.44 aufgrund der Handliste des Heeres-Personalamtes mit Ergänzungen und Fortführung bis 1945 sowie mit einer Liste der Offiziere, die bis zum 31.8.1944 aus dem Generalstab ausgeschieden sind, Band 2 L-Z, Osnabrück 1998.

KC winners open AfDs

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would have thought that you would have got the message by now. This is blatant forum shopping for your campaign to delete KC recipients because the consensus on those AfDs is currently "keep". Just drop the stick or make your case via individual AfDs. I'm getting a little sick of this constant carping on about KC recipients. I don't see you showing any interest in the hundreds of Hero of the Soviet Union recipient articles being created over the last year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and WP:APPNOTE. On the "keep" consensus, I don't see it, unless we are talking about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; or at least the "keep" voters have not offered any policy- / guideline-based arguments or provided any sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:POINTY and WP:IDHT. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

KC recipients closed AfDs

For sake of completeness we should list the outcome of past rulings. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the years on when these closures occurred. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I also added the service branch these men served in. It may be pure coincidence, but it appears that a former member of the Waffen-SS stands a higher chance of having his article deleted. Until now, all former members of the Heer were retained. Heinrich Trettner, a former member of the Luftwaffe, was kept while Peter Arent and Manfred Büttner, both questionable recipients, were deleted. Kriegsmarine members have not yet been nominated for deletion. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The explanation may be that (I suspect) the bulk of the Waffen-SS KC articles were created by a single editor (Jim Sweeney) in the span of a few months in late 2008 - early 2009. For example, 5 out of first six names on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS are articles created by this editor (I did not go further). Since they all follow the predetermined formula and were created without regard to proper sourcing (often using dubious web sites such as frontjkemper, waffen-ss.nl, das-reich.ca, axishistory.com, etc), it seems natural they they got nominated (and deleted). Here's a random pick: Hermann Alber, 2009, from the same list. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Kept KC recipients

No consensus KC recipients

Deleted fully confirmed KC recipients

Redirected fully confirmed KC recipients

K.e.coffman (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted questionable KC recipients

Redirected questionable KC recipients

Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners

There is a rough consensus in favor of K.e.coffman's proposal. KC recipients who do not meet WP:SOLDIER #2-8 and who do not meet the GNG should be redirected, as is already being done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Knight Cross recipients. WP:SOLDIER #1 should be updated as well in accordance with point #7 of K.e.coffman's proposal.
The balance of probability concept is a bit baroque, perhaps unnecessarily so. Where there is confusion, fall back on WP:BRD.
Editors who oppose this proposal argue that it sets an excessively high standard, and that KC recipients should be presumed notable as they meet point #1 of WP:SOLDIER. However, WP:SOLDIER is just a presumption. Articles still need to meet the GNG, and in the case of the Knight's Cross the community has established a consensus at AfD that sufficient reliable sources are lacking for many recipients. It is true that in some cases (such as WP:PROF) there is a consensus that SNGs can serve as alternatives to the GNG, but I am aware of no such consensus for SOLDIER.
Additionally, WP:SOLDIER #1 only refers to the highest award for valor. In cases where the KC was awarded for leadership and not valor, SOLDIER does not apply. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe it's a good time to revisit the proposal, following the conclusion of the AfDs above, for several reasons:

  • "...What constitutes the "highest" award has been the subject of debate on Wikipedia. Some awards, such as the Légion d'Honneur and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, are/were bestowed in different grades and/or have civil and military versions. For the purpose of this notability guide it is considered that only the highest military grade of such awards is likely to result in significant coverage to confer notability, although the case of recipients of lower grades needs to be considered carefully as some will potentially have this coverage also, while even some recipients of the highest grade may not" (diff).

With that in mind, I've repurposed the proposal from Part 3 above, with some modifications:

  1. A page for the KC should be set up at MILHIST with key information on this proposal.
  2. Further individual articles (other than possible redirects) for the ~4700 KC recipients (or really any other bulk creation) who have not yet been created should be discouraged unless sources are specifically provided which actually show evidence of notability rather than just KC award.
  3. Redirection to the alphabetical list should be considered to be acceptable for some subset of KC recipients.
  4. Noting that some of those awarded KCs for leadership, etc, would meet other notability criteria, it would seem that there are certain groups which on balance of probability might be kept as individual article for the moment (possibly a very long moment) without further immediate evidence unless more in-depth sourcing indicates that they actually don't meet notability requirements. This is in no way an ideal solution, or presumptive of notability, just a pragmatic and long-term but temporary way ahead. An explicit set of such Balance of Probability groups should be determined, for instance:
    1. Those articles where non-trivial biographical coverage of the subject can be located, with sources that conform to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES
    2. Those awarded the KC posthumously where the article/sources indicates that the posthumous award was presented for valour, rather than for distinguished service
    3. Those awarded the KC up until 3 June 1940 (introduction of Oak Leaves)
    4. Those awarded the Oak Leaves up until 28 September 1941 (introduction of Swords)
    5. All those awarded grades of Swords and higher
    6. Those who meet at least one criterion in WP:SOLDIER #2 through #8 (i.e. "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer or equivalent"; "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat"; etc)
  5. Once explicit criteria for Balance of Probability groups have been specified, editors may choose to do the following (but are not necessarily encouraged to do so):
    1. assess KC articles against those explicit criteria
    2. Note how the article passes/fails each criteria on its talk page - checklist
    3. Redirect to the alphabetic list (if all criteria failed)
    4. Explicitly list this process as having been done at MILHIST with the assessment linked (if redirect performed)
  6. Editors performing such an assessment must perform it carefully/properly. Repeated failure to perform assessment correctly is grounds for requiring such assessment to cease. Idiosyncratic interpretations and determinations (especially source assessment) are to be avoided.
  7. An explicit note/link on the KC should be added to WP:SOLDIER#1 (noting that any footnotes might be clearer at the bottom of the section than the bottom of the page with hover)
  8. AFD should be an absolute last resort for any of the KC awardee pages (much less thousands of them).
  9. Balance of Probability criteria, and the articles retained under them, could eventually be considered for revisitation/re-discussion if required, but only after all remaining KC articles have either been determined to be notable, have been kept under an initial BOP assessment, or are redirects. There is no particular hurry to get to such a state.
  10. Restoration of redirected pages to a full article should RS evidence of notability be found should of course be considered as expected/desirable.
  11. Move the final determination of the Balance of Probability criteria to the MILHIST Talk page.

I would appreciate input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping to those who participated in the recent AfDs: @Peterkingiron, Sturmvogel 66, Peacemaker67, TonyBallioni, CrispyGlover, Dane2007, Johnpacklambert, CoffeeWithMarkets, and Kierzek: @Chris troutman, Assayer, MisterBee1966, Lemongirl942, AustralianRupert, Anotherclown, Iazyges, SwisterTwister, Kleuske, Hawkeye7, CCCVCCCC, Engleham, Indy beetle, NuclearWarfare, and Collect: K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Notifying those who participated in the above discussion: @Pburka, Roches, Seraphimblade, DGG, Arnoutf, John K, MSJapan, Bermicourt, Monopoly31121993, Lineagegeek, Necrothesp, BrownHairedGirl, Fdewaele, MaxRavenclaw, Frickeg, Hydronium Hydroxide, Otr500, and Aoziwe:. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Question @K.e.coffman: you state that "Further individual articles (other than possible redirects) for the ~4700 KC recipients (or really any other bulk creation) who have not yet been created should be disallowed under an explicit MILHIST project rule/guideline unless sources are specifically provided which actually show evidence of notability rather than just KC award." Would this mean that they would be first made in Draft's, and then passed through AFC, or else someone would post about it on the talk page and then the article would be sent forward with coordinator and or community approval or else be denied and not be created? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Iazyges: Yes, AfC would be the shorter way to say what's in that point. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
AfC is already tremendously backlogged. I realize that 4700 articles wouldn't all be created at once, but I'm not sure requiring AfC would be that practical a solution. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I see this as a minor issue at the end of the day, as the articles in questions were largely created by just two editors, who are retiered / semi-retired. So it's not a rampant problem, and can be dealt with on an individual basis. The point states: "unless sources are specifically provided which actually show evidence of notability", so I believe that members of the project should feel free to create articles, provided they include RS to sustain a page that says more than "this person received a KC on such date". I modified above to tone the language down. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on all counts I have repeatedly stated I am against K.e.coffman's misguided de-Nazification efforts. This issue of notability is for MILHIST to collectively decide. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia projects do not decide notability, only community as a whole. In any case, the MILHIST community has already weighed in on the topic, by modifying WP:SOLDIER as noted above. The suggestion for the redirect process came up again from MILHIST members during AfDs. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the series of AfDs was getting old, and finding a way to deal with these biographies that are not notable in themselves without AfD is important in my mind. I suggested PROD for unconfirmed recipients, and still think this would work in theory. My main issue with what has been mentioned above is the AfC point. I think adding to that backlog isn't a good idea.TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. As an experienced Wiki editor who has come to this relatively recently, I have found the criticism of these articles and their sources to be excessive in a way that has not been justified by my own research of the sources and which appears to demand a far higher level of referencing than is usual for Wikipedia. I have to agree with Chris Troutman that it looks like a sustained anti-Nazi or anti-German campaign and the above proposal just takes it to a new and more draconian level. The rules proposed are way in excess of normal Wikipedia practice and I cannot support them. That does not mean I am "pro" the Nazis - absolutely not - and we must apply the usual Wikipedia guidelines for biographical articles, but this needs to be done in a reasonable way and not simply by deleting everything that fails an extreme set of tests decided by one or two authors. Nor should there be a ban on writing new articles. Bermicourt (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as it is clear that a great many would fail to be kept, it is best that we vet them early in the cycle instead of having thousands of AfD discussions. Once they have been vetted as specifically notable, then the AfD discussion could note that fact. Collect (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A general ban on writing new articles on any topic is in direct opposition to the idea of Wikipedia. I strongly oppose that. Also, it is unclear to me what you mean by this 'Balance of Probability' thing, but AFAICT it boils down to a set of extra criteria for one side in one conflict. That's a bad idea, IMHO, no matter how despicable that side was. Also the idea, and correct me if I'm wrong, to designate certain users as assessors of these articles is a bad one, especially if they can be removed from that list if their judgment is deemed 'idiosyncratic' (whatever that means in this context). The risk of an echo chamber is just too big, and that, too, runs against the idea of Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kleuske: I've further stricken this point as being of concern. As I stated above, this is not the main consideration here, as the proposal aims to deal with existing articles, rather than with any future ones. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Excellent. That leaves the rest of my objections. Kleuske (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this sets an excessively high standard for such articles based on one (or maybe two) editors' views on the aspects of the Knight's Cross and some sources. I believe it is misguided and not in accordance with general WP policies and guidelines, and is also ridiculously bureaucratic and "star chamber"ish. I have no confidence that the editor concerned will drop the stick regardless of the outcome here, but believe this proposal has no merit. If you have the courage of your convictions and feel this is so important to en WP, then make the case on each individual article using the existing tried and true AfD process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The existing tried and true process of AfD has resulted in 72% of the articles discussed being deleted or redirect (clarity edit: this year by my nose count), and none of the discussions have resulted in a keep or no consensus close since June. While I agree with Kleuske that K.e.coffman's proposal and the balancing can be difficult to understand, having a set of criteria that can avoid sending a bunch of articles to AfD overtime when it looks like a rough consensus towards redirect has developed in that forum seems to me to be a good thing and actually the opposite of bureaucratic. I opposed having the new articles have to go through AfC because that seems unfair and over the top, but developing a set of guidelines on how to deal with a set of articles that are likely to be redirected is good. Perhaps the proposal language could be simplified, but I think the idea behind it is well-intentioned and serves a good purpose. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
By a rough count, 18 editors participated in 10 AfD discussions on fully confirmed KC holders, with 100% closing as delete or redirect. Thus the statement about "one (or maybe two) editors' views" is not accurate. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
It is one or two editors pushing this issue, and you are on point. The dismissal or lack of interest in some sources at AfD is also relevant to this discussion. Very few people (if any) participating in these AfDs have actually seen the sources that have been discussed, including you by all appearances. Yet you persist, without the benefit of having seen the sources in question, dismissing them as directories. Thus the AfD discussions have largely been uninformed by an examination of the actual sources available, and have had predictable outcomes. Where you have not got the result you wanted the first time, you have just re-nominated them. In my view, the encyclopedia would benefit far more from you actually contributing some content instead of spending your efforts and time on this. But clearly I am in the minority. I stand by my statement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources discussing the works in question (Thomas & Wegmann) have been presented at the AfD, and the participating editors have not deemed these authors to be RS for the purpose of establishing notability. It was also claimed during the AfDs that this work was endorsed by the German Military History Research Office, but it was shown not to be the case. Hence the AfDs closed the way they did.
If these outcomes were the fault of the "tried and true" process, then I suggest revisiting the process, rather than re-arguing the AfDs. While it's preferable to see the source in question, it's not necessary when it's been discussed by other reliable sources. To illustrate this point: I knew from RS that Franz Kurowski‎ was a dubious source, but I got his Panzer Aces & Das Afrika Korps from the library anyway after the fact. They were even worse than what I had anticipated: pure historical fiction.
Separately, as can be seen from the AfDs of the two articles that were re-nominated, they were originally put through AfD in 2009 and Oct 2015 (before I started editing). Thus the statement "Where you have not got the result you wanted the first time, you have just re-nominated them" is not accurate. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
None of the "participating editors" have seen Thomas and Wegmann as far as I could tell, they've only read what you claim about the source (which you appear not to have even seen), and appear to have accepted your claims about it in good faith. That is not an informed decision. You claim you got a copy of Kurowski, I couldn't care less, and I didn't mention him at any point. What about Thomas and Wegmann? Have you seen a copy? Or even the full pages on any one of the Waffen-SS soldiers you have AfD'd? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review may be the better course of action vs rearguing the AfDs here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (in principle) - I find myself in agreement with TonyBallioni; the particulars of K.e.coffman's proposal need some clarifications and definent changes (some of which we seem to have already worked out), this seems our best way for dealing with a common dilemma. Needless to say, redirecting articles leaves no permanent damage. I'm by no means a deletionist, but there's a strain of these articles that needs to be dealt with efficiently and with the least possible collateral. Comment: I would also like to encourage my fellow editors to look at the particular situation before us. I think it's safe to say K.e.coffman has been quite upfront about his "de-Nazification" efforts, and some of us (myself included) are hesitant about where the spirit of such a campaign will take Wikipedia, but accusing him of only focusing on KC awards and not in other areas is simply no useful charge. He is as obligated to clean up the Heroes of the Soviet Union as I am. Let us focus at what's at hand here to decide what is best for the project and answer the fundamental question: Do these articles belong on Wikipedia? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I guess I've never really been one to see the issue that is perceived to exist with these (although I don't doubt that in some areas there are probably issues with individual sources / authors etc). Whist I acknowledge the effort that has gone in to working through these so far, and in attempting to develop consensus and a robust coarse of action, but ultimately without being convinced that there is a widespread issue I cannot support such an all encompassing solution. The prescription being proposed seems likely to result in the loss of some (or even many) potentially valid articles which would do a disservice to the volunteers that donated their time making these contributions in good faith. Maybe I'm unimaginative but ultimately I cannot conceive of fair way to address this issue–assuming their is one–other than working through each article individually, including AfD if necessary (as traumatic and / or disruptive such a process is likely to become for the project should it transpire). Anotherclown (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Labeling this as an "Anti-German" campaign just shows how misguided and dogmatic some editors are. These editors will never change their opinions as they see this as an attack on German nationalism and as a result they would rather ignore the myriad of reasons why these pages don't meet Wikipedia own guidelines. It has already been stated through in depth discussion (over months) that this is a case where 7-8 years ago a single editor created hundreds Wikipedia pages for SS members. That editor's sources are dubious and in one case (an encyclopedia of all KC award winners which is found on nearly every article) the book's German author explicitly states that his book should not be used as a reliable source. The proposals put forward here are well thought out and explicit. They are advocating for a gradual approach of working though these articles. It deserves the full support of unbiased editors.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support mostly, I think. Sorry but I have not kept up with this discussion for some time but having skimmed it again very lightly just now my initial comments stand. KCs with more than just they got the award could/should have their own article, and be in an encyclopedic list, the rest just to an encyclopedic list, with redirects to the list if appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for most articles judging from the AfD results. I !votes on a few of these AfDs and I found that many of these bios were stubs with very less information (and some relying on non-RS). It is much better for these articles to be present in a list such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A). This preserves the information on the encyclopaedia without the need for a separate article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: First; I "strenuously object" to personal attacks sticking a label on someone (such as anti-German) unless there is concrete proof of this. If it is articles about some aspect related to Germany, or German people, it does not make me "Anti-German" if I feel the evidence supports they do not deserve a separate article. I have German roots, my name has German roots, my brother was even born in Germany, so I would be super offended if someone tried to apply this to me. I am against articles that have found a place on Wikipedia because someone (or group) took a list and created a bunch of career stubs, that are micro-pseudo biographies of individuals, that should not have a stand-alone article. I find it strange that someone would state "K.e.coffman's misguided de-Nazification efforts" when, unless I am interpreting something wrong, moves for redirects and specifically #8 states "AFD should be an absolute last resort for any of the KC awardee pages (much less thousands of them).", which seems to be an attempted solution to avoid deletion, especially considering #10. I agree with "balance of probability" being considered. Many soldiers fought simply because their country went to war and I would not want a legitimate "hero" to be excluded because references could not be located, no matter what "side" a person was on. I do think limits appropriate. Many of these articles are being deleted and this is a reason I would rather redirect over deletion. Otr500 (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: G'day, I don't think creating a specifically labelled 'balance of probability criteria' for a single set of articles is the way ahead, as it essentially creates a system of two rules, which isn't really in the spirit of Wikipedia, IMO. That said, I would argue that such criteria already really exist within WP:SOLDIER (and should really be applied to all military biographical articles, regardless), specifically: "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand alone article." I also I do not believe that stipulations about "idiosyncratic interpretations" should be made in any policy or guideline that might stem from this. For instance, who determines they are idiosyncratic? These sorts of words are subjective and potentially pejorative. Remember, we are all volunteers and for the project to be successful we should be promoting an environment where people feel they are allowed to bring their ideas to table. It is ok to disagree, so long as it is done in an appropriate way, and using labels in this manner is not conducive to promoting collaboration. Editors should not be vilified for holding a contrary view so long as they uphold the five pillars. Where there is disagreement about notability, there is the AfD process. That said, I do agree that AfD should be the last resort as it is indeed time consuming and diverts editorial effort away from content creation. In many cases, I believe redirecting is the best course of action for many of these sorts of articles as many of them do seem to lack the required level of coverage to support a stand alone article. That said, some (if not quite a few) of these articles could be redirected through a simple WP:BRD process, IMO. If the redirect is disputed, then it could easily be reverted and discussed, and then taken to AfD if the issue still wasn't resolved satisfactorily... or am I missing something here? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that WP:BRD and WP:BOLD already exist as solutions here myself. At the same time, given the accusations of anti-German bias, I get why K.e.coffman wants to float this as a discussion to get community consensus on how to move forward. Perhaps a simpler solution would be adding in the notes of WP:SOLDIER something along the lines of "discussions about these articles in AfD and other forums generally reflect a consensus that articles where the subject has received the highest award for valor at a lower grade and does not have substantial coverage should be redirected to a list." Not tied to the exact wording, but something simple like that would leave the discretion in the editors hands, and could easily be reverted per WP:BRD and taken to AfD as neccesary. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
AustralianRupert makes a good point, as the proposal is essentially WP:SOLDIER (with criteria 2 through 8 expressly called out). In its finer points, it attempts to address some concerns expressed earlier, such as the staggered introduction of various grades of the Knight’s Cross. HH original proposal was formulated before the recent AfDs, and since then the following occurred: (1) Various potential sources have been evaluated & rejected at AfD; (2) as the result, all KC articles brought to AfD have been deleted or redirected; (3) rough consensus began to develop towards a redirect approach at AfD; (4) SOLDIER itself has been revised. So perhaps the proposal is unnecessarily complex, and this has caused some concerns, vs discussing the approach in terms of simply SOLDIER / BOLD / BRD. (I've further stricken the point with the "Idiosyncratic interpretations" language as confusing).
As far as what type of articles would fall under it, I believe that the most affected would be those on low-ranking Waffen-SS men such as some of [added for clarity] those appearing on the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS. These articles were mostly created by Jim Sweeney in late 2008—early 2009, using highly dubious sources. As a result, nearly all Waffen-SS KC holders have individual articles (vs 50% for KC recipients as a whole), so the proportion of articles on non-notable subjects would be highest in this area. Some of DocYako’s article as well — however, this editor appeared to focus mostly on divisional commanders, so they would not be included under this proposal, meeting other criteria of SOLDIER.
@AustralianRupert: I would second TonyBallioni’s suggestion about adding a note to SOLDIER. I also suggest including "provided they do not meet other criteria under SOLDIER” to the note for clarity. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it is very important that it is clear that articles meeting other criteria of SOLDIER are excluded from this approach if it goes ahead. With specific reference to Waffen-SS personnel, Brigadefuhrer and above should be left alone as they were general officers, and all Standartenfuhrer need to be examined closely, as officers at that rank did command large formations at times. I'm glad the "idiosyncratic interpretations" bit has been stricken, but I still have concerns about this approach given diverging opinions about the reliability of available sources on KC recipients. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Concur on articles meeting other criteria of SOLDIER being excluded, including the Waffen-SS (Brigadefuhrer / divisional commanders & higher). Those with Standartenfuhrer ranks (roughly equivalent to colonel / typically regimental commanders) would need to meet GNG, as at this level of advancement they would not be covered by SOLDIER. If they commanded especially notable units, coverage would likely be available. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I found the referenced sources for the articles in question being far below the usual Wikipedia standard. We are talking about subjects of military history, more precisely, of the history of WW II, about which there has been written and published a lot. There has not been much serious research on KC recipients, however, and compilers of dictionaries of KC recipients were not primarily interested in a serious, i.e., critical approach. Some have been quite outspoken about their motives. They want these German soldiers being remembered as soldiers who only did their duty and fought with "extreme bravery" on the battlefield. Manfred Dörr and Florian Berger, e.g., clearly have honorable remembrance in mind. Therefore, the narrative of articles based on such literature inevitably subscribes to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. The simple fact of a KC award tells less than half of the story, because the issues of propaganda and reliability are not addressed. Thus many articles resemble memorials and contain so few information that they can easily be transformed into redirects. To nominate each of them for deletion can be a tiresome effort. Even if you could research the "military career" of these recipients, notability is mostly established by reference to the award and thus to presumed "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership". By the same logic you could also have articles on all recipient's of the German Cross or the Close Combat Clasp. The literature on them is of the same quality, since authors who have worked on KC recipients have often also worked on those recipients.--Assayer (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As well as/or any measure similar to the above. As per previous suggestions, and based on the AfD results, and the scope of the issue. Any potential loss of okay articles – which, given how the previous cases have turned out so far, seems rather unlikely to me – is mitigated by the possibility of maintaining their histories as mentioned above. Also I don't really get the protests about "de-Nazification" or "excessive" standards, seeing as the standards in question are notability, reliable sources and the like, which have been found wanting in the various processes like de-GA-listing or AfDs. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments: The reason I support balance of probability criteria, from a project point of view, is that it is not actually creating a "new set of rules". BEFORE going to AFD there is a process that should be followed. This is one reason I do not like mass AFD's. Included in the criteria for "before" is WP:NEXIST and I am sure that we can assume there are sources for "Waffen-SS (Brigadefuhrer / divisional commanders & higher", especially when a higher class award is concerned. WP:BRD is an expected process of Wikipedia as is AFD. My concern is that if something is not done a lot of articles have ---and will--- be deleted simply because there is not a source that can be found in English searches, and some of them are deserving an article. This should be a valid concern to all so:
    • 1)- "IF" a recipient falls under the suggested criteria above (rank and level of award for sure) then someone looking at one of these articles can pass it, at the time, using the balance of probability criteria. Nothing in this project can hinder the normal Wikipedia process, this is just a step to try to "wade through the mess" in order to hopefully redirect those that will certainly fail AFD using the criteria from past AFD deletes.
    • 2)- I would think, as a project, if an editor assesses "redirect", and lists this on the project page, and another editor disagrees which would be contesting, that would start a project assessment for more eyes "before" going straight to AFD. This would prevent someone from pretty much mass redirecting, and "if" a project acceptable discussion is not fruitful, there is "always" AFD. A main point is that there will be many recipients that should not have a stand-alone article, but surely we would not want to "get rid of them all" and if there is a target redirect that is always preferable correct? If there is no objection to redirect then it would simply be uncontested. Possibly using the project page as a "sounding board", maybe with a certain window of time (5 or 7 days maybe) would be a thought. This would be an actual project cleanup, with consensus, where a project "redirect" would hopefully preempt a more than likely "delete" at AFD. Otr500 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Keeping AFD free of pattern-based nominations (regardless of what the common result is) is better than not, and I find merge/redirection preferable to deletion for cases of questionable notability. While it appears likely that not all KCs are sufficiently notable for an individual article, it's in no way generally clear which of the KCs do or don't meet the bar themselves, they do at least have some level of notability, many of the articles don't provide information on why the award was made, assessment of the offline sources is difficult (though argument from ignorance is unpleasant), and additional evidence of notability above the contents of the citation is probably not really provided by such compilations. And, of course, deletion or redirection is the direction that the consensus at AFD has gone this year, even with weighting given to the votes of MILHIST members. <rant>FWIW, I don't find much value in removal or addition of many of these KC articles or, for that matter many other topics with bulk creations of individual articles. (Subspecies of insects that were described a century ago, and appear to have had little research and less general notice in the century since? Minor streams that have GNIS records but little else? Ruritanian villages with a population of a few dozen residents? ...).</rant> ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • general comment I wouldn't consider the drive to remove questionable or p Throblmatic articles on KC holders as "anti-German" if anything it is "anti-Nazi". On the German Wikipedia those articles tend to be a constant problem as well. The main problem stems from having a larger number of rather controversial people notable due to formal reasons without having any proper sources on them available. The KC holders are only the most prominent example, but in particular you get a similar issues with any medal holders from totalitarian systems for which no independent/reliable/critical sources exist. Because of the lack of sources those articles tends to serve as "memoriabilia" inside wikipedia for supporters of those totalitarian systems and are used to push material from improper/substandard sources and establish the use of such sources in areas that receive little attention. There many possible ways to remedy that problem from restricting or amending general notabilities criteria to putting a stronger emphasis on sources (as in if they are no proper sources avaibale, he/she is assumed to be irrelevant no matter what orders he/she might have received).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- This discussion should not be seen in nationalistic terms. The problem is ultimately with the frequency with which an award is given. I can speak more easily of British honour than German. Some awards are given so frequently that they do not make the recipient WP-notable. That applies to MBE, OBE, and possibly CBE, but KBE will normally be notable. In the Civil Service (and diplomatic service) certain awards are given for good service after reaching a certain rank. But it will be the rank that confers notability, not the award. Victoria Cross (for valour in the face of the enemy) is rarely awarded, as the George Cross (for valour in other situations); these confer notability automatically. However DSO, DSC, MM, and the like are awarded for distinguished service, and sufficiently commonly for the award not to make the recipient notable. Certain "stars" were awarded automatically for service in particular theatre or war and obviously do not confer notability. Applying this to the German Knights Cross, I gather that there were 10,000 awarded in WWII, which makes me suspect that it was awarded for distinguished service (rather than bravery); and it probably got devalued towards the end of the war. In a few of the discussions to which I have contributed it was apparently not clear whether the award had actually been made (as opposed to recommended) before the war ended and there was no longer a German government to award it. There is a further issue that those who were young men fighting in WWII are now old men and are dieing, so obituaries are appearing. WP does not accept that a person is notable just because he has an obituary in the paper. A Knights Cross holder may or may not be notable. This needs to be judged in each case, based on the citation and a judgment of how notable the person really was. If we are to redirect, it needs to be to a list-article. If there were 10,000 awards, I am very dubious as to whether we can have a satisfactory list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Peterkingiron: I'm not sure if this is an !vote, or if you just wanted to comment. I agree in part that the "flat" (alphabetical) lists including all of the 7000+ recipients may not be the best approach to presenting encyclopedic info, but these lists already exist, so for expediency they may be the best target. FYI, a discussion on potential improvements to the list articles (specifically, introductions to each article) is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, section: "Knight's Cross Holders List articles: Lead and opening section". Any interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Peterkingiron: There are some inaccuracies in your thinking. The CBE is invariably considered to be notable. Few awards are given automatically, with the exception of some very senior posts that invariably carry (or, more often, carried) knighthoods. The DSC is and the MM was awarded for valour, not "distinguished service", and are third-level awards. The DSO could be awarded for either valour or leadership, and as a second-level award a DSO and bar (i.e. two DSOs) is sufficient for notability under WP:SOLDIER. The Knight's Cross could likewise be awarded for either. No campaign medal of any country confers notability, since they are awarded automatically to anyone who meets the criteria, but none of these awards are campaign medals. An obituary in a major national newspaper is generally regarded as conferring notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that this needs a formal close by an uninvolved admin before the proponent starts implementing it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The consensus looks pretty clear to me, but anyone should feel free to request a formal close. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe all awards of oak leaves and above should be considered notable. Effectively the Knight's Cross must count as a second-level award and two second-level awards meet the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. I think it is misguided to rate the KC below the level of, say, the DSO or DCM; just as misguided, in fact, as considering it equal to the VC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I may have voted before. It appears that I was wrong about CBE being notable per se. Campaign stars came up with the pay and merely indicate service. I suspect that the problem here is that the Knights Cross suffered from "dilution": there were a vast number of them. In contrast VC is awarded very sparingly. I would support redirecting to list article (or one of a series, the list being constructed so that there is space from a sentence of two on the circumstances of the award. On the other hand if there is information about the person's military career, sufficient to justify having an article, apart from the KC, we should allow the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note on the list discussion

This discussion may be relevant: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1, as it pertains to the lists the article on non-notable subjects are being redirected to. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Current consensus

Concerns about this process have been expressed elsewhere, such as:

  • "Its been explained to you countless times. He is a KC winner, equivalent of a VC or MH. Period." and "[K.e.coffman] will continue his uninformed editing and vandalism of the work that you, me, Misterbee and other good researchers have done so far..." (diff)
  • "[The redirects] are NOT supported. (...) Where does it say that the Knight's Cross is not a sufficient award for notability? How many editors agreed? How many opposed?" (diff)

I thus would like to ping the editors who have expressed concerns (@Dapi89 and Philby NZ:) so that they can review the discussion, and especially the close, which reads:

There is a rough consensus in favor of K.e.coffman's proposal. KC recipients who do not meet WP:SOLDIER #2-8 and who do not meet the GNG should be redirected, as is already being done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Knight Cross recipients. WP:SOLDIER #1 should be updated as well in accordance with point #7 of K.e.coffman's proposal.
The balance of probability concept is a bit baroque, perhaps unnecessarily so. Where there is confusion, fall back on WP:BRD.
Editors who oppose this proposal argue that it sets an excessively high standard, and that KC recipients should be presumed notable as they meet point #1 of WP:SOLDIER. However, WP:SOLDIER is just a presumption. Articles still need to meet the GNG, and in the case of the Knight's Cross the community has established a consensus at AfD that sufficient reliable sources are lacking for many recipients. It is true that in some cases (such as WP:PROF) there is a consensus that SNGs can serve as alternatives to the GNG, but I am aware of no such consensus for SOLDIER.
Additionally, WP:SOLDIER #1 only refers to the highest award for valor. In cases where the KC was awarded for leadership and not valor, SOLDIER does not apply. --Cerebellum

There are avenues to challenging the existing consensus, and they should be pursued if desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What K.e.Coffman does not mention is that there are other criteria for notability. Most of these men were the most successful in their field. And I mean in the history of warfare. Also, they receive coverage in relevant works. In this latest case, the subject was the wing commander of the most successful German fighter wing in the southern theatre. He accounted for 97 Western Allied aircraft shot down. Far more than any other Allied pilot. That record also means he is in the top five to six German fighter pilots on the Western Fronts. Dapi89 (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I assume that by the serviceman with 97 aerial victories the editor means Gustav Rödel. If this is the case, then the editor appears to be confused as this article had not been redirected to a list. The disagreement arose from the blanking of Template:Copyvio-revdel from the page, once the copyright infringing material had been removed; see: Talk:Gustav_Rödel#Copyvio. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional concern was expressed at Talk:Willy Riedel‎: please do not redirect/delete articles without discussion. However, such community discussion has already occurred. I would like to ping the editor who posted the comment Auntieruth55 so that they can review the discussion and the close, which has been reposted in this subsection immediately above. K.e.coffman

There are avenues to challenging the existing consensus, and they should be pursued if desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A new concern has been expressed by one of the editors pinged above (Philby NZ) via the following edit summary: "Such an edit should be discussed before such unilateral action is taken. A number of editors have taken issue with this polarising viewpoint".
Similar to my comment above, I'd like to point out that the community discussion has already taken place. If there are continued concerns about this consensus, then I invite the editors to discuss here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Subsequent AfDs

Closed

Open

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Vincenzo Langella

Hello! See Vincenzo Langella. IMHO I'm for the removal. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO

Clearly not going to happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should not WP:PORNBIO meet porn stars that have acting in a lot of movies?

Isis Nile doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO despite that she's been an acting in 204 movies. --Gstree (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The old criteria around the number of films that an adult film performer has been in was removed from PORNBIO a very long time ago. Please see more discussion at this subject's talk page as well. Guy1890 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I skimmed through all actors (with image) at http://www.iafd.com/lookupethnic.rme/ethnic=black/pix=1/Page=1 and find 0 actresses that had won anything than:

You should read http://fusion.net/story/168714/janice-griffith-interracial-porn-racism/ --Gstree (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The "Spank Bank Awards" aren't even a notable award ceremony. Guy1890 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:PORNBIO

I think we should update Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models

"Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration."

to

"Has won a well-known and significant adult entertainment award in the Industry awards group. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration."

What do you think? --Gstree (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Over my dead festering corpse. Gstree please do a search through the talk page archives for pornbio related discussions. Then go wash your brain out under a stream of sodium hydroxide to try to remove the memory of the discussions. Hopefully then you will understand why seeking to loosen pornbio is never going to fly and likely to spark another exercise of name calling and invective. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Spartaz: What are you doing? --Gstree (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please don't edit my post, There was nothing objectionable in it. You will know what I meant when you have subjected your brain to the previous discussions. Afterwards you will want to wash the memory away. Then you will understand why your intervention to loosen PORNBIO isn't going to fly. Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Better? --Gstree (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Grow up Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Go FCK a tree! --Gstree (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I don't know how to do that. Feel free to share any advice you might have. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Why would you want to fuck a tree? Follow my good example and don't do everything people tell you to do. --Gstree (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The proposal goes against the consensus of editors in many AfD discussions. Winning a porn award that is notable enough for a Wikipedia article does not automatically make the performer notable. The Urban X Award and the NightMoves Award are examples of this. If the award is won, do independent reliable sources take note? • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gene93k: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award", are Urban X Award and the NightMoves Award excluded from that? Both are notorious enough for having their own articles. --Gstree (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You are wasting other editors' time. Read the prior discussions and RfCs in the archives for this page and sample the pertinent deletion discussions. "A well-known and significant industry award" is, by strong and repeated consensus, a higher standard than a merely notable award. This standard is not in any way unique to porn; Rhodes Scholars have received a much more notable award than winners of tinfoil porn trophies, but are not presumed individually notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You fail to see my point: Should contributors play a guess game on which adult awards that qualify as "well-known and significant industry award"? We need to list them in WP:PORNBIO. --Gstree (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You fail to see WP:CONSENSUS. This has been discussed as nauseam. The well-known/significant standard is incorporated in ANYBIO, and I don't believe such a list is generally provided for other fields, perhaps not for any other field. It's tendentious at best for you, after five weeks of editing, to parachute into a discussion that has been going on for a long time and demand that the community accommodate your unfamiliarity with past discussions rather than putting forth the not terribly time-consuming effort to educate yourself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I updated the suggested text change at the top of this section. Please read it. What do you think? --Gstree (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a rather sharp departure from practice amd would result in the deletion of a great many winners of such awards as GayVN, most European awards, and all critics' awards, by eliminating any presumption that such winners would pass the GNG. This would likely be a good thing, on balance, but would also result in months if not years of heated, contentious AFDs. That you advance it as a serious proposal demonstrates why your unfamiliarity with the long history of notability discussions in this area is leading you to make increasing untenable proposals. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you fucking serious?, Winning some shitty award doesn't automatically make you notable and it sure as fuck isn't a free pass to an article either, I suggest this be speedy closed and the nom severely trouted as this won't ever pass nor should it!, PORNBIO is strict for a reason. –Davey2010Talk 18:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Davey2010: 9 awards are in adult entertainment award under the Industry awards group. So what is the problem? --Gstree (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
And only two of them clearly pass the well-known/significant test; the other seven either probably fail it or already fail it by consensus. For example, the Adult Broadcasting Awards are given only for work available through a single satellite TV service, and are an open-and-shut fail. While I think that doing this would certainly make deletion decisions earlier, and would on balance improve the encyclopedia, it would also through a lot of chunks of the baby out with the bathwater. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Ok, so should we change it to "Has won a well-known and significant industry award like AVN Award or XBIZ Award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." --Gstree (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Not unless you want to have your head handed to you. Stop this until you are much better-informed on past discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Add AVN Award and XBIZ Award

I suggest that we update Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models:

  • From: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration."
  • To: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award such as a AVN Award or a XBIZ Award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." --Gstree (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrestlers

Professional wrestlers? Per the Sports persons, they fall under entertainer, what about Indy wrestlers that are notable etc? Entertainers section doesn't cover the wrestlers.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

All three of the points under entertainers can and do apply to wrestlers. -DJSasso (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Religious institutions parameter for Infobox_Christian_leader?

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Infobox Christian leader#Propose new parameter. In the process of evaluating a {{Edit template-protected}} request, I have some concerns about the specifics of the proposed change, and am not 100% certain that the Christianity biography editors are actually going to want some version of this parameter, though I think they might. Further input requested.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding of name of Prominent personality from Allahabad in list of people.

Hi would like you to add name of maulana Mohammad mian Farooqui name in list of noteable people name from Allahabad as he was famous the most known and famous religious Muslim scholar of Allahabad .the first person to study religious teachings from Al Azhar university of Egypt from Allahabad. Was two term nominated Member of parliament from arajya Sabha.very prominent member of Congress, was Congress president from Allahabad when jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister of India and Indira Gandhi was prime minister .so request you to please add his name in you list. Omar.Farooqui383 (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

maulana Mohammad mian Farooqui doesn't have an article. (Neither is he mentioned within Farooqi#Notable Farooqis.) Without an article, his name can't be added to List of people from Allahabad. (This list, by the way, is very poor. Compare List of street photographers: sourced.) If he really is or was famous, then he merits an article here. Perhaps you would like to write an article about him? If so, click Draft:maulana Mohammad mian Farooqui and go ahead and write one (based on reliable sources, of course). -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:LISTBIO

WP:LISTBIO says "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above." Which "notability criteria above" is it specifically referring to?—Bagumba (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the silence, on am going to change it to point to WP:LISTCRITERIA instead of "above".—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Luke Shen-Tian Chi was reject for article

I personally believe that, Luke Shen-Tien Chi satisfied the worthy of notice or note. Under the interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Unfortunately some editors disagree.

The reason is I find his story to be quite interesting. And his work on Spokenology is worthy of notice for his newly created concepts cover in his book published by Tsinghua University Press.

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary*Noteability is not based on weayher someone is "worthy of note". This is a 100% wrong reading of the concept. Notability is based on weather someone has been noted. The sources need to actually exist, reliable 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP1E or ONEEVENT issue at Diego Viñales

Please comment at Talk:Diego Viñales#Creation, notability, and title regarding possible WP:BLP1E or WP:ONEEVENT issues, and proper title for this article. Please keep in mind that the article is brand new, and that there are many more sources available than currently shown. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we include musicians and visual artists in this category:

In the section for entertainers, shouldn't we include musicians, dancers, visual artists, performance artists, along with actors and voice actors and such? I might modify it myself, but I am just an IP. 108.20.213.77 (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Musicians are covered by WP:MUSICBIO. Visual artists are covered by WP:ARTIST. Performance artists should probably be left vague as to whether they're WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE. Dancers should probably be added to WP:ENT (a sampling of previous AFDs seem to be based on GNG and ENT). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Exception Proposal for General Authority Seventies of the LDS Church

Hello, everyone! I am new to this Wikipedia page, but have been an editor here for the last 10 years. I am posting this topic today in response to the suggestions of some admins who have been kind enough to direct me to do so. There has been a recurring issue within the last year or so where articles about general authority seventies of the LDS Church have been nominated for deletion. The primary reasoning behind these deletion nominations have been a lack of sufficient coverage of such individuals in sources not directly published, owned, or controlled by the Church. But those deletions in and of themselves have created a problem. The LDS Church has almost 17 million members, and those who serve as general authority seventies have been compared to the Catholic bishops who lead diocese in major world areas. Additionally, because the Church has been said to be one of the largest Christian religious denominations both within the United States and elsewhere in the world, those who serve as general authority seventies should qualify for their own standards of notability, whether or not their ministry is covered sufficiently in independent sources. The administrative government of the Church at the top is said to contain three groups: the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (who work under the First Presidency while a Church president is living, but are seen as "equal in authority" to them upon the death of the Church President), and the Seventy, who, in the absence of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, would constitute the main leadership of the Church, and would, in such instances, be equal in authority to the other two bodies. For all of these reasons, these general authority seventies should rightly be held to their own standard of notability, and as such, should be an exception to the process of traditional AfD standards of nomination. But that is just my opinion, which may or may not match the consensus of any who see and might wish to comment on this topic. I therefore turn this topic over to the rest of you to discuss. I will not have a problem with whatever the consensus decides: I have become somewhat respected within these 10 years for honoring decisions made by the consensus, whether or not I personally agree with them. This will be no different. Your thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I concur. I’m not an LDS but I know the 70 are the top leaders and consider them notable individuals. No one would get to be into the 70 without significant leadership recognition, published writing etc. It is encyclopedic to cover and interesting to both members and non-members trying to understand the LDS church to understand who leads the world body. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • We should treat the hierarchy of the LDS in the same way we treat that of the Catholic Church (Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide). I think WP:NPOV applies. I don't think it should not be an exception; it should be a rule. I am not a member of the LDS.--Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 18:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:FALSEBALANCE. If Bishops are generally considered notable, it's not because the Catholic Church itself writes about them a lot, it's because they receive coverage from sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We can't just take any religion and say "the top x% of leaders are notable". There should be no rule of thumb about a particular position being notable unless in practically all instances that position comes with significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I have no idea if Catholic bishops do, but that's the question that would be relevant should WikiProject Catholicism decide to propose their essay on notability to become a guideline. As this page says, that page is an "essay giving examples of the types of persons related to the Catholic Church likely to meet notability guidelines" (i.e. likely to have received coverage sufficient to be notable, not automatic conferral of notability). We'd need to see it tested several times first, and of the times I've seen I don't think a general rule applies that such coverage exists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I just checked out the ongoing AfD that, I believe, led to this thread. In it, I'm shocked to see it argued (by multiple people apparently) that someone could be considered notable based just on sources published by that person's employer. A large church has lots of resources to create multiple publishing arms to write things about itself and its members, but notability is about coverage in sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Authors of reviewed books (Creative professionals)

"Common outcomes" include [4] the following:

Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

Should not this also be included in the section "Creative professionals" [5] of the official gudeline? That would help to add some clarity in AfD discussions. It appears this criterion has been actively used in a number of AfDs. I also asked question here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Suitability of WP:INVALIDBIO

Recently, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Lawrence, I was surprised to find the community has resoundly rejected WP:INVALIDBIO as a guideline and suggests this does not meet established practice. (Compare and contrast with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Electras from 2008). Therefore, perhaps this section should be reworded or removed - I'm not going to run off and do that as everybody would assume I was disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but perhaps the discussion does need to be thrashed out. Your thoughts please. Paging AfD participants reddogsix, Johnpacklambert, Agricola44, Winged Blades of Godric, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Rogermx Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with WP:INVALIDBIO. We seem to lack any clear guidelines on when redirects are worth having, "Redirects are cheap" doesn’t really cut it in this case. In general I will not argue for a redirect unless the article is at least vaguely notable, but is effectively being merged due to lack of scope. I think we need to have a discussion about whether a subject needs to be notable to have a redirect. (if it helps any, I would have supported Ritchie's redirect idea had he made it first or if I had the AfD on my watchlist). Dysklyver 09:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, this is far from the only example where I have seen a split between redirect and delete at an AfD - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisa Jordana (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Johnson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ribeca. The concept "whether a subject needs to be notable to have a redirect" doesn't really make sense, because if a subject is notable, by definition they have their own article, and redirects only come into play when a topic is not notable. Certainly having a guideline that says you shouldn't keep redirects on celebrity's children per WP:BLP does make sense, but the two examples in WP:INVALIDBIO go directly against that. Someone like Paris Jackson (actress) or Frances Bean Cobain might be redirects now if they hadn't established their own notability. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Emmanuel Weyi deletion discussion

Emmanuel Weyi was a candidate for President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A number of news sources (such as the Los Angeles Times, Colorado Public Radio, Africa Agenda, and Black Stars, have interviewed or otherwise covered Weyi's presidential campaign in detail. However, the article on Weyi is up for deletion and it is being claimed that, despite multiple, independent, non-trivial sources having covered the politician, there is a higher, unstated standard beyond GNG and ANYBIO. Can someone explain how this makes sense? To me, given our acknowledged systemic bias against covering people and places outside of the Anglo-European sphere, we should be maintaining articles like Weyi's, not deleting them.--TM 13:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

United States District Judge

Does serving as a United States District Judge make one notable in the absence of information about specific judgments rendered? The sample case is Donald West VanArtsdalen.--Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 20:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Are law clerks to the US Supreme Court inherently notable?

An unresolved conflict, that might fall under the notability of political figures, is: Are law clerks to the US Supreme court inherently notable?

One deletion discussion said, "it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable."

There have been a number of pages that have been started, on people who are only notable as Supreme Court clerks. I've nominated some of them for deletion. See, for instance, Frederick J. Haig, Clarence M. York, Thomas H. Fitnam, Frederick Emmons Chapin, and Everett Riley York.

It's true that, in the present day, a Supreme Court clerkship is one of the most prestigious jobs for a recent law school graduate. However, this wasn't always the case, as books like "Sorcerer's Apprentices" and "Courtiers of the Marble Palace" demonstrate.

Do we delete all these pages? 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason for immediately presuming notability for law clerks. A sitting SCOTUS judge by the very nature of the position will be, but not those that serve them. But that doesn't mean they can't be notable but that notability should be judged by the GNG. -MASEM (t) 20:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Two points. First, in my view a Supreme Court clerkship is sufficient to make one notable. If the early clerks are not notable (is the very first clerk notable?), at what year would you suggest sufficient importance attaches to start making them notable? 1930? 1940? Second, there is an issue of citation. We don't link to citations from the clerks list because with 2,250 names listed the number of cites would overwhelm the page. We rely on each clerk's Wiki page to hold the citations (currently, there are just over 500 Wiki pages for the 2,250 approx clerks). So if you count the clerks as not notable, or not notable prior to 1940, there is the problem of where to place the citations confirming their details. Open to suggestions on how to balance considerations.Bjhillis (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
As the books, "Sorcerer's Apprentices" and "Courtiers of the Marble Palace" document, in the early days of the Supreme Court clerkships, many Supreme Court clerks were more like stenographers or secretaries. The job did not carry the glory that it does now. So, making a page about a clerk in those days, would almost be like making a page about a secretary.
You ask the question: "at what year would you suggest sufficient importance attaches to start making them notable?" In my view, the job of Supreme Court clerk (by itself) is still not of sufficient importance to make a person notable. It's true that there are over 500 Wiki pages for the 2,250 approx clerks. That is because many clerks (at least in more recent times) have gone on to very notable careers after they clerked. If you look at those 500 Wiki pages, you will find that the subjects of almost all of those pages, meet the notability guidelines for reasons other than their clerkship alone.
I think that even today, the best that can be said about a Supreme Court clerkship is that it is often a predictor of future success. Many of this year's clerks will likely go on to very successful careers. But, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and staring pages about this year's clerks would be almost like making Wikipedia a crystal ball.
There is an even stronger reason, against starting a page on someone who clerked for the Supreme Court, and then did not go on to a future career that made them notable. In their case, their clerkship was not an accurate predictor of future notability. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example to consider: Eileen Mary Mullen, clerked JP Stevens 1995-96, top of her class at Stanford Law School. Can't find anything about her after the Supreme Court, so not notable on this standard? Quite a brilliant mind.Bjhillis (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the case, that we would not consider her non-notable if all she had in her career was a top of the class at Stanford and was a clerk to the Supreme Court. We are not a Who's Who here - we're looking for what they contributed towards society. If all we can say about her from RSes are her schooling and her clerk term, that's fine for a list article but fails WP:N for a standalone article. We need in-depth coverage which clerks do no get (since they are appointed positions, not likely the actual Judges which have to go through a complex process and thus are going to be publically scrutinized). --MASEM (t) 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to put numbers on it, of the 2,250 or so law clerks, roughly 1,700 would pass notability (either in big law, big govt or law school professors), so we're weighing the status of roughly 550 clerks who have a small post-clerk footprint in this discussion.Bjhillis (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
By your own admission that these 550 have a "small" post-clerk footprint, you are stating that these clerks aren't really notable for anything other than their clerkship. So no, they shouldn't have their own WP articles. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Got it, you feel strongly. Per above, any suggestions on handling citations for those deemed not to warrant their own page? The issue of clerk notability is made more complex by the effect on the law clerks list, which is one of the largest lists on Wikipedia.Bjhillis (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You are missing the point we're telling you. Being a law clerk to a SCOTUS justice does not infer any type of notability. They have to be notable for other things. Just because there may be sources that list their biographical info (birthplace/date,schooling, etc.) doesn't mean we need to include it per WP:NOT#WHOSWHO. Some who were/are professors and had notable careers there can have their page, but its not because they were made a clerk. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Your point is in your opinion a clerkship is not notable. Am I missing a nuance or subtlety? In my view, a SCOTUS clerk participated in a historically significant event and is notable. For example, Lucy Lomen was the first women SCOTUS clerk and afterwards worked in house for GE. Notable? The clerks who worked on Brown vs. Board of Education and did nothing afterward...Notable? Let the majority rule on that point. Totally apart from that notability discussion, in managing very long lists on Wiki, pages for individual entries serves the purpose of better organizing citations; in such instances, Wiki pages for the individuals, in this case, or any entries in a long list (e.g., butterflies in the Amazon), is one method of list management. This is not a matter of the existence of sources justifies an individual page. What you are saying is "I'd rather not address how to manage citations to non-notable people in a long Wiki list." Well, one approach is to have pages for each entry to serve as sub-pages to the list. And another approach is to break up long lists to enable hanging citations on each entry. And another approach is add 1000 footnotes to already long pages. Additional suggestions on this point? Ideas welcome.Bjhillis (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
We judge notability not by opinion, but on how much significant coverage from independent, secondary sources there are for a person per WP:N. What is shown is that simply being named a SCOTUS clerk does not bring about any significant coverage. Some happen to be notable, but because of events outside of being a SCOTUS clerk. If you want to make a subpage for any clerk, you need to show that this type of secondary coverage exists, otherwise the article will be deleted or merged back to the list. In terms of sourcing the long list of clerks on that table, if all that it is is name, whom they served, and their school, a ref or two for each is sufficient - and yes, this might mean a 1000+ ref list. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
A bit of a tangent, but 1000+ entries ≠ 1000+ individual refs. We often find that one source will verify much or even all of a given list (and likely there are single sources that cover all of the clerks for a given Justice, or for a period in the Court's history), yet some editors feel compelled to still make individual ref tags for each entry. It's almost like some editors think there's something magic about ref tags, as if nothing is sourced or even verifiable unless that particular formatting is used all over the place. There are many, many ways to make it clear what sources support which entries in a list without that kind of redundant clutter. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is what is done currently at the Law Clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court page, and it works pretty well. There is no central reference for all data points for clerks, but we assert the Wiki editors have checked it all. The thought was in the future more granular cites would improve the page and Wiki pages of the individual entries was the efficient approach.Bjhillis (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I’d support that all recent SOCUS clerks are deemed notable. They author (in the background) the Supreme Court decisions and generally go on to other notable things. I suppose there are exceptions but on balance I’d at least say being named a clerk is a strong indicator of notability. It’s a strong claim that say participating in the Olympics or one professional cricket game shich are both autopasses. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a question. Where are US supreme court clerks different from supreme court clerks of other countries. The notability of judges (see e.g. WP:NPOL) is not limited to a single nation, and any deemed notability of any group of officials should in my opinion not be specified for any single country to avoid systemic bias in Wikipedia on this count. To avoid such, please consider whether clerks of (let's say) the Luxembourg supreme court should be deemed inherently notable. IF not, this would (in my view) count heavily against this proposal. Of course, as said by several editors above, if a SCOTUS or in fact a Luxembourg clerk meets general notability guidelines they should be included, but for that we do not need anything new. Arnoutf (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have thought so, anymore than justice's associates at the High Court of Australia. I agree with the systemic bias query. Just apply the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I see no compelling reason for a SNG here. WP:GNG, read with WP:NBIO, is perfectly adequate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem: "Being a law clerk to a SCOTUS justice does not infer any type of notability." While some law clerks later become notable for something else, it would be unwise to assume all SCOTUS law clerks could be presumed to be notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Cut comment per note from Troutman.Bjhillis (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bjhillis: More to the point, you've authored a few articles about these clerks turned attorneys, and they're now facing deletion. You seem to want us to presume notability to protect articles you should not have written. I think continuing this discussion when the consensus is clearly against you is without merit. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that a Supreme Court clerkship does not render the recipient inherently notable, but that it is a strong indicator that should combine with any other indicia of notability to support notability. I would support adding some language to that effect to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. bd2412 T 02:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2017&oldid=1111998750"