Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service record of Heinrich Himmler

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service record of Heinrich Himmler

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unneeded content fork & indiscriminate collection of information; key milestones of the subject's career are already included in the main article. Appears to be mostly WP:OR. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I suppose the documents might pass GNG, what we actually have is a POVFORK of Heinrich Himmler, with unsourced information (e.g. his pre 1929 ranks) and content that is fairly off topic to Himmler's service record - e.g. the uniforms and rank insignia he wore.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per both the above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum): Incidentally, note also the bizarre (mis-)definition of this article's topic. Ostensibly, according to the lead sentence, the article's topic is not some sub-aspect of somebody's biography, but a physical pile of papers ("The service record of Heinrich Himmler was a collection of official SS documents maintained at the SS Personalhauptamt in Berlin"). That pile of papers is somehow supposed to be simultaneously the article's topic, its main source about itself, and its own evidence of notability. That's nonsense, of course: while some historians may well have consulted and cited those papers as sources in their research, none has treated them as an independent object of scholarly interest in their own right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like something that might be good for a transcription at Wikisource, perhaps? But not a Wikipedia article - and the article itself is horribly confused over what it's supposed to be about. The more I look at it, the more it seems like some sort of SYNTH essay trying to fork a few parts of the subject from the main Heinrich Himmler article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble about Wikisource is, the papers are not even published, afaics. Just some pages of bureaucratic routine documents collecting dust in some archive box somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so no good as a source for anything then (and even less appropriate as a Wikipedia article subject). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all the above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any unique reliably sourced material to Heinrich Himmler. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an estimation of which parts that might be, in your view? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The awards and decorations are the main thing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the main Heinrich Himmler article just prior to the creation of this article [1] shows that there was substantial disagreement about the appropriateness of just that material there, and OberRanks then created this fork here mainly in order to avoid its deletion, when he realized there was no consensus for keeping it there. In light of this, anybody who might now want to reinsert that material in the main article would certainly first have to garner a substantially new consensus there; a merger (even just a partial one) is not something we at this AfD could simply mandate even if we wanted to. Moreover, since that material is already in the history of the main article, there would still be no need for a redirect and preserved history here (e.g. for the sake of attribution), even if a restitution on the main article were to be done eventually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of that. Personally I don't care enough to start that argument again, but I believe they are germane to his article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since significant coverage by independent sources is lacking, the topic itself does not want warrant a stand-alone article. I am not very well versed in US copyright laws, but I wonder, if the File:HimmlerRecord.jpg is correctly licensed, because an employee of the US government may have prepared a copy, but certainly not the original document. Himmler's service record is not an original work of the Federal Government of the US.--Assayer (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not believe it is needed; there may be a point or two which could be entered into the main GA article with RS cite, of course, but upon a very quick review just now, I did not see anything that "jumped out at me", in that regard, so to speak. Someone with more time, should give it a once over. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am with Hawkeye on this. Carrite (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.