Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Beck

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. Sandstein 17:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Beck[edit]

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

Non-notable SS captain; significant RS coverage cannot be found in Google books; what comes up is by neo-Nazi author Patrick Agte; Waffen-SS apologist Kurt Meyer and other Waffen-SS admirers, such as Marc Rikmenspoel.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus whether a single award of the Knight's Cross meets WP:SOLDIER #1, given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000). This article is part of about 500 similar articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in late 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This award was granted too often for the holders to be notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until consensus has been achieved one way or another about whether or not the KC meets the notability criteria. Deletion of valid KC winner articles for which other sourcing cannot be found is premature until that has happened.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't believe the above to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion as WP:SOLDIER (which is a project-specific essay) does not trump WP:GNG, which still needs to be demonstrated via significant RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomas & Wegmann's multi-volume series on KC recipients will have a page or two on this chap. Add that to other sources and he will meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. Additionally, current sources appear to be listings of individuals who received the Knights Cross during the time period. They appear to be out of print and could not find a scan of them, but unless anyone has greater knowledge, I'm assuming they are obits/short bios of people awarded the Knights Cross. I don't think this meets the criteria of WP:GNG and unless someone can provide more context to the sources, I think deleting is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for context, here's how the source is described in the aforementioned discussion (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.

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 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.

So stating that Thomas & Wegmann will have this coverage is an insufficient argument in this discussion, as the source has not been produced and the extent of biographical data is unknown. Similar to TonyBallioni, I do not believe that, even if the Thomas & Wegmann entry was produced, it would be sufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context. This confirms my opinion above. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from the discussion mentioned above - "it’s possible to meet WP:SOLDIER#1 ("Were awarded their nation’s highest award for valour") and yet not meet notability requirements." I agree wholeheartedly with that statement; this soldier does not meet notability requirements. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the notability guideline. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable captain in the SS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having voted in analogous cases before, I feel the same way about this article here. Merely winning the aforementioned award doesn't inherently convey reasonable notability. It also pains me to see this page referring to the odious Kurt Meyer as some kind of reliable source. Deletion is the right move. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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