Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Drechsler

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, nomination withdrawn - Smerdis of Tlön 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Drechsler

*Delete Article doesn't establish notability of the individual. Yes, he was a German POW, but clearly not the only one. I don't see why his story is notable or encyclopedic. He does, however, get interesting google hits yet I still don't think his story is important for any reason - I think this is a good one to put up for discussion. Strothra 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC) withdrawn nom. --Strothra 03:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting enough story that someone made a website 60 years after his death. To me this suggests there are enough 3rd-party citations in existence to establish notability... they just haven't been tracked down yet. --Dgies 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Werner Dreshler's story was actually very famous, there was even a recent history channel special detailing what went on. I really must say that the fact you would even nominate this article for deletion really makes me quite incredulous as this person is so obviously notable that it is difficult to assume good faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how he is notable. There were many POW's during WWII, and he doesn't seem too different. TJ Spyke 05:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How many POWs spied on fellow POWs for their captors and were executed for it? Dgies 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know the exact number, but he wasn't the only one. TJ Spyke 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was one of a very few, and what makes it even more notable is that the people who killed him were also executed, in fact that became the last mass execution in United States History, this is a well known story and there was even a recent one hour long history channel special about the whole event. I should also enlighten people by letting them know that this particular editor has nominated every single article I have ever created for deletion (which were some of his first actions as a wikipedian) after I reverted him on a completely unrelated topic (none of those afds stood which may be why he is trying again 6 months later).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable, has book on Amazon.com.--Sar e kOfVulcan 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious 2 notable points being collaboration with captors, & murder for same, then subsequent interest (last mass u s execution obviously shld be added to article) if all verifiable. all of these points indicate that subject may well be searched for on wikipedia. also querry lack of reason for nomination; on the face of it seems to support moshe's claim that it is purely vindictive Bsnowball 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of a TV biography, author, not even in question. Proto::type 09:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no-brainer on that issue - what really is at question is whether to pursue this as a bad-faith nomination. --Leifern 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable and interesting SteveLamacq43 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per notability guidelines for an individual:

"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

Two quick hits for published works can be found here, or here if you want to read a book about it to name a few, and I saw many more in German. As to suggestions of a bad faith nom, lets just assume good faith and wrap up the discussion without trying to get anyone in trouble. -bobby 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per publication from Navy Dept and TV documentary. Edison 16:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: DCEdwards1966 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man's been the subject of a History Channel documentary. Sounds notable enough to pass. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems very notable to me. The TV broadcast only strengthens that. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability not even really questionable, as per all of the above. Badbilltucker 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, looks pretty damn notable. RFerreira 00:38, 3 November 2006 (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.