Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Kling

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. This string of nominations under the reasoning of WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER has been contentious, but I am satisfied that there is a consensus to keep - rather than no consensus - this particular article after two relists. KaisaL (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Kling

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

Does not meet GNG; the Knight's Cross is cited to what appears to be an (incomprehensible) primary source / database, so the article may also fail WP:SOLDIER. Article tagged since Jan 2016. Sources: Google books search produces Panzer Aces, a work by Franz Kurowski, who is non RS. Other sources appears to be all primary material. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep returns a few google hits for Heinrick Kling ritterkreuz including on the first page a book called Himmlers Krieger. I'm not sure what's wrong with Panzer Ace as a reference which mentions Kling in its 6th para http://www.panzerace.net/biography/ostfront-1942-43.html. I think the two high order medals make it a notable person who happened to live before the internet age so inevitably will receive fewer hits than a modern soldier. MLA (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: http://www.panzerace.net/biography/ostfront-1942-43.html is non RS. For Kurowski, pls see Sample from Panzer Aces, in the Talk page of the Franz Kurowski article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a classic example of an editor deleting large amounts of text and sources then nominating it for deletion. There were several sources on this article prior to their deletion by the nominator. Please check the article history for such behaviour when supporting a deletion nomination. A check of "what links here" would show that his award is cited on the list at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km) to Scherzer and Fellgeibel, including his rank at the time, the date of award and his position at the time of award. It is not that hard to make such checks before nominating for deletion. All of this information should have been available to editors considering deletion, yet it was not, due to the deletion of significant parts of the article and sources prior to its nomination. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: As was suggested on my Talk page, I am including a Jan 2016 version of the article, tagged both Unreliable sources and Refimprove. I believe that four months is sufficient time to improve an article. The material was cited to non-RS websites, such as:
- ss.501.panzer
- panzer.ace
- axis.persons, etc.

Other citations were to a non-RS Franz Kurowski and HIAG-affiliated Waffen-SS admirer Patrick Agte. Per WP:MILMOS – Sources, "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, 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".

Kurowski and Agte fail both of these criteria. I had a chance to handle a book by Kurowski that he wrote on the Afrika Korps; and it was definitely low-quality: half a page of sources, no footnotes/endnotes and plenty of dialog. So it read more like a novel, rather than a historical study.

The subject fails GNG regardless. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As also suggested on my Talk page, I checked the name against the Neue Deutsche Biographie; however, no entry for the subject exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or keep: a redirect is probably the best solution here if significant coverage cannot be located currently. I would also be perfectly happy with keeping the article, if that is what the consensus is. If redirection is determined to be the best solution, then I'd suggest redirecting to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km) where the award is fully referenced. Two reasonable sources appear to have been in the article as further reading, but were removed with this edit: [1]. Again, unless you can provide a policy reason for doing so, I am not sure I understand why you are removing these sources. It is perfectly acceptable for editors to add books/web sites that are not specifically cited as long as they are done in an appropriate manner; indeed doing so helps readers and other editors do further research. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom's comment: Here's the Jan 2016 version of the article which has been tagged Refimprove. I believe that 6 months is sufficient time to improve an article, but establishing notability or providing citations. As far as sources go, they included Franz Kurowski, Patrick Agte, and a book by Ernst-Günther Krätschmer from non-RS publisher Nation Europa, as well as Fellgiebel which is more of a directory, with an individual entry being a just a line (please see Sample). I don't see a point in keeping sources not used for citations when citations have been specifically requested (and not provided). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that it can help other editors find references. Please remember that there is WP:NODEADLINE. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @AustralianRupert: This is reminiscent of the discussion Peacemaker and I had back in Dec 2015: Mass removal of uncited or poorly cited material at 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking. My response was that there's indeed a deadline: Wikipedia:The deadline is now. The article in question, SS Division Wiking, has significantly shrunk since then -- I've not seen an interest from the community in improving the article, so I can only assume that the article is in a better state now vs the condition that I encountered it, in November 2015.
    - In any case, this particular article was created in 2008: Kling, 2008. "Significant RS coverage" has not been provided in the eight intervening years, so it looks unlikely that it ever will be. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 3 July 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.