Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/119th SS-Standarte


 * 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. article sufficiently improved that the nominator now agrees as well.  DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

119th SS-Standarte

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unit is non-notable admin unit per WP:MILMOS/N Anotherclown (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Anotherclown (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - there's no real evidence of notability for this 'paper' unit. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Referenced article about an SS unit that existed in Poland during World War II. Members of this unit were rotated through to perform security and extermination duties in the Holocaust.  The article contains information about the creation of the unit, the name of its commander, as well as material concerning its location and activities.  This was also a regimental command in the SS, falling under the criteria of Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations.  Plenty of room for expansion here as well. -OberRanks (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But why is the unit notable? According to the article, the unit didn't even really exist other than on paper and a couple of administrative assignments. At most I would think that warrants a footnote in another article or an entry in a table somewhere.  Gigs (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The original language of the article did appear that way and perhaps that was my fault. I will attempt to write it a bit better.  This was a real commissioned SS unit associated with the Holocaust.  I added another reference and expanded the article.  I will try and add more material later. -OberRanks (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning towards keep, for now; though you've fixed the "paper command" issue, I still don't really see inherant notability in the article's present state. The "capable of undertaking" criteria isn't met IMO because the unit doesn't exist anymore and isn't capable of undertaking anything (past tense need not apply). However, you did state that the unit's history includes extermination activity in the Holocaust, which sounds notable (if distasteful, to say the least) to me. If you can support that with referencing, along with some other details (like what camps did they work at, are there any statistics for this particular unit's kill rate, etc.) I will change my !vote to keep.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to need a bit of time to research and work on this. I also recently discovered that this unit had personnel associated with German units in Danzig (something I need to research a bit more).  I think there is enough of a future here to warrant keeping it for now and letting me work on it for a few more weeks. -OberRanks (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is worthwhile purely military-historical data. However, Oberanks, have you considered writing the Oberabschnitt or Abschnitt articles first, and listing all their subordinate Standarte(s) in the parent articles? Then they would be larger command formations, equivalent to military districts, and the individual Standarte information would not be so likely to be listed for deletion. Particularly notable Standarte could always be split out later. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea. I agree starting from the top down would be a very good idea instead of doing it the other way around. -OberRanks (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, do you want to consider renaming this article as 'SS-Oberabschnitt X' (Ostland perhaps? I don't know enough to follow the Nazi naming conventions for the various bits of conquered Europe.) Buckshot06 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a good idea... if you are agreeable, I will change my vote to "upmerge".  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This Standarte was under the command of SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel. -OberRanks (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not much more to say here. Notability was established, references were added, article was expanded.  The "parent command" article was also created per the discussion.  That was what we had discussed doing, so consensus appears to have been reached. -OberRanks (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge - as a result of the changes initiated after my comments above. I believe that it is not worthwhile keeping individual articles on these type of semi-military administrative units, when they can all be incorporated into the Oberabschnitt articles. If the Oberabschnitt articles reach the size limit, then the situation can be reconsidered, and a decision can be made on whether individual Standartes are individually notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is mainly about whether we should recognize General-SS units as "real" military commands. The Germans most certainly did.  Some of the larger Standarten, such as the 1st SS-Standarte, the 6th SS-Standarte, and the 11th SS-Standarte were seen as extremely important SS units.  As for the 119th, its been established from sources that this was a "logistical command", but one which contributed personnel to the Holocaust.  As the article stands right now, its sourced, cited, and references notable events.  There are some others that could be merged, but it might be best to leave this one alone for now and see where it goes. -OberRanks (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: I see no need to continuously re-list this over and over again. There's clearly enough material here to at least have a start class article.  I recommend closing this out.  This debate has been open for over two weeks and, during that time, the article was significantly expanded with several new sources and material added into the page.  -OberRanks (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. An admin ought to be able to see this is a keep.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As the original nominator I agree this needs to be closed as a keep per Bahamut and OberRanks. Clearly no consensus to delete and the article has moved forward since it was nominated. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep I don't see the problem with keeping this article. It seems to be a notable military unit of Nazi Germany. Sourcing could be improved, but it seems to be acceptable. Figureofnine (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.