Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Senghas

Paul Senghas

Paul Senghas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines, nor WP:SOLDIER, as no citation is provided for the Knight's Cross. The article has been tagged Unreferenced since Dec 2015. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Funnily enough, I found absolutely no credible sources whatsoever on this individual. Proof of the Knight's Cross would theoretically be in Fellgiebel, but no citation is given. Unless someone can verify this, I'm sticking with delete. GAB^gab 21:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as I'm also not finding anything actually convincing of better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• 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 (Schu–Sz) 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 prior to its nomination. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nom's comment: Following the suggestion on my Talk page, I'm providing a Dec 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. The article's material was not cited to any sources, and no sources were provided except for a section "Further reading". Google book search results produce hits to Willi Fey, Leon Degrelle, Franz Kurowski, and Marc Rikmenspoel. The latter is an author highlighted in the The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies.

Also pinging GeneralizationsAreBad and SwisterTwister to see if they would like to revisit their comments, following the review of the Dev 2015 version of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As for those authors:

• Kurowski is not an RS, according to Smelser + Davies. This particular book "[paints an extraordinarily favorable portrait of the [Wehrmacht]... Kurowski gives the reader an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior."] And so on.
• As for Degrelle: "You'll learn the other side of the Bitburg story, the epic of the Waffen SS, suppressed in the controlled media, told by a man whose unique literary talent and unmatched combat experience make him the premier spokesmen for his fallen comrades. War criminals? Victims of Hitlerism? Now you'll be able to judge for yourself." That's the book's blurb. This was a collaborator, a diehard fascist, a Waffen-SS man, and anything but a reliable source.
• Rikmenspoel is also addressed in Smelser + Davies: "He clearly saw [the Waffen-SS as heroic and their ultimate defeat not of their own making."] He is identified as a "guru," a wholly negative trait as defined by S + D. Another non-RS.

In short, those secondary sources are not RS. Nevertheless, Scherzer and Fellgeibel establish that Senghas received the Knight's Cross - great. The question is, does he have substantial coverage besides this? SOLDIER says that "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if they have received the highest valour award. My opinion is that there is not sufficient coverage, regardless of the reference for the Knight's Cross, to meet GNG standards. After all, SOLDIER is an essay, while GNG is a policy. I continue to support deletion. GAB^gab 22:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)