Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel

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. I found FPAS's argument the most persuasive, and it was supported by the majority of contributors to this discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel[edit]

[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)

Administrative subdivision of the Nazi SS. Fails WP:RS. The one source cited for this stub is a book by one Mark C. Yerger, who according to his German Wikipedia article is known for writing hagiographical and revisionist books about the SS, making him an unreliable source. A Google Books search finds only brief mentions. The article was created by OberRanks, who has been site-banned for apparently fabricating sources. Sandstein 22:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search failed to convince me of the subject's notability. ~ HAL333 23:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable administrative structure, unreliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- Between the wars, Danzig was a free city, intended to be neutral between Poland and Germany, at the end of the Polish corridor, connecting Poland with the sea. Restoring the corridor and Danzig to Germany was a key Nazi demand. This organisation was (apparently) the Nazi/SS vehicle for this campaign. This is thus potentially significant, but I do not know enough to say more or firmly vote to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. no reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- MILUNIT is an essay and therefore irrelevant. It is also unclear how this administrative subdivision would even meet the requirements of that essay. Most importantly, notability arguments are irrelevant if a topic is not even verifiable in reliable sources, as this one is. Sandstein 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here we go again, the usual WP:JUSTANESSAY drivel to dismiss a standard that is widely accepted by those who actually know about such things. No, it is not "irrelevant". If it was irrelevant then it would not have been written and not accepted by so many editors. If you really don't know why an SS formation "would even meet the requirements of that essay", then, frankly, words fail me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - "those who actually know about such things" presumably meaning anyone who disagrees with you doesn't?! You are reminded of WP:NPA. Mztourist (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Laughable, given Sandstein was trying to tell me that a widely accepted and cited essay was irrelevant, presumably because he disagrees with it! No personal attacks here. I merely said that people who know about such things for the most part accept WP:MILUNIT as a good standard to work by. You must have misinterpreted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No misinterpretation at all. User:Sandstein has a very clear understanding of the relevant deletion criteria. Mztourist (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:MILUNIT or WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of proper sourcing establishing notability. The single source cited in the article is not reliable (as pointed out above), and since it was added by OberRanks, we have every reason to expect that even that bad source won't actually support the contents claimed in the article. Has anybody checked? Personally, I'm not touching Yerger with a ten-foot pole. As for WP:MILUNIT, that essay makes the very wise point that "presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" and that the specific types of units listed further down are merely "likely, but not certain, to have such coverage". Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually, I did get hold of an online copy of Yerger after all. He does mention this unit (on less than half a page), but as expected, the contents don't match those in the article. According to him, the unit was only formed in 1939, and it didn't cover East Prussia. Thus, the first two sentences of OberRanks' article contradict his source flat out, and the rest of the article isn't based on anything in the source at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreliable source and that has been misused. Zawed (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've now translated Mark C. Yerger's article into English, so at least we do get another article out of this. Sandstein 07:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, any thoughts on some sort of "redirect" to Allgemeine SS? Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conducting a WP:BEFORE search yields nothing closely resembling significant coverage in multiple, not numerically just not similar, reliable and independent secondary sources. I am not concerned with what was prior practice on Wikipedia. I am only concerned with the criteria given to me to make my determination in this regard. No essay or SNG was considered and never will be considered by myself until such time as the basic criteria WP:N is revisited and altered. Presumed notability can be confirmed or rebutted with evidence or lack thereof, respectively. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:24, 19 January 2021 (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.