Talk:Günter Steinhausen

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link, just two passing mentions. Article uncited since July 2016.

No de.Wiki article. Please also see a note at MilHist Talk Archives for background behind the redirect. In summary, per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meets the criteria easily. Dapi89 (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Meanwhile, I've restored the pre-redirect version diff, as table was unreliably cited to "Aces of the Luftwaffe website". In addition, please do not remove the maintenance tag without addressing the issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "the table will be cited through another source. note the citation was removed" is not how it's done. If the intention is to cite this material, please restore to a Sandbox not the main space. Please do not restore uncited material per WP:BURDEN:
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, it isn't how it is done. You are deleting articles faster than they can be restored and improved. Can you expect to delete so many so fast and then have it in perfect condition in such a short time? Do the other person the courtesy of at least waiting a few days since you are the cause of this. Dapi89 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above comment is wrong on the time frame; this particular article has been tagged refimprove since July 2016 (the tag that the editor insists on removing diff). Six months is plenty of time. Also, how does this article meet WP:SOLDIER? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As regards notability, this man was awarded the Knight's Cross, Germany's highest military decoration (admittedly with several gradings). If you deem his victory score too low to merit attention, then consider that the Western Front theatres were all far more constrained than the Eastern Front's vast air battles. Excluding Marseille's exceptional score, the average is far lower. If you would set the bar at, for instance, 50 victories to exclude him, then you will also exclude virtually all Allied pilots - are you saying they also are not noteworthy and deserve to have their articles deleted? Given the huge range of articles in the Wikipedia, I hardly feel this is adding 'useless clutter' or 'fluff'Philby NZ (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. "Successful completion of missions" (i.e. shooting down enemy aircraft, sinking enemy ships, etc) is not part of WP:SOLDIER that I can see. A recent discussion (linked above) established that awarding of the Knight's Cross alone is not a sufficient claim to notability. Anyway, pilots would not be covered as only those awarded for valour would qualify under SOLDIER1. Separately, SOLDIER is an essay, not an WP:SNG, and is this subordinate to WP:GNG. Notability is established via WP:SIGCOV which is not present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Its been explained to you countless times. He is a KC winner, equivalent of a VC or MH. Period.
 * In any case, using WP:SIGCOV indicates that the objector is not familiar with the air war over Africa. If he was, to a book, Marseille, Stahldschmidt, Neumann and Steinhausen are mentioned and given coverage that even some senior commanders don't receive. Dapi89 (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, many learned books may say that, but it doesn't matter, because as long as Coffman hasn't heard of him, he is not notable. And he will continue his uninformed editing and vandalism of the work that you, me, Misterbee and other good researchers have done far faster than we can present a case for the defense, after the damage has been done anyway. And that won't matter because in his crusader's zeal he is deaf to reason: This person was German, so he was a Nazi and everything written about Nazis is always suspect and full of alternative facts. It is too wearying to try and compete against such intransigence when it can be ripped down again and again. Philby NZ (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * please see Current consensus on Knight's Cross winners. Please feel free to comment there. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)