Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brothers von Blücher


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Brothers von Blücher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article fails WP:SOLDIER. As only one of the brothers received a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, it would make more sense to write an article about him and insert the information there. Alas Iron Cross recipients are redirected at this point. The author of the article is indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. Catlemur (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep on account of subject meeting WP:NSOLDIER. The three persons that are the subject of the contested article were among the dead from the German side during the 1941 invasion of Crete. On that basis alone they do not merit an article but the fact of three brothers being killed in the same military operation within days of each other makes the subject evidently notable. They cannot be considered, on the basis of evidence, as independently notable but as a group, as brothers, they certainly are. Read: Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign and I consider three brothers dying in the same battle together as having played an "important role" in it. Moreover: It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mention above is not necessarily non-notable. Even if the specific criteria listed in WP:NSOLDIER do not strictly accord notability per se, we must acknowledge the inherent notability of the subject, per above. (We cannot and I will not invoke articles of similar themes that already exist.)
 * About the indefinite banning of the creator of the article: That should be of no concern at all. Creators never own the text anyway.
 * And, yes, the text, as a whole, is a bit slanted towards admiration for its subject. But this is easily fixed. And it's clumsily written; even the name of the city near which they died is spelled in various ways in the text. This, too, can be easily fixed. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Non-valid deletion rational. SOLDIER only creates a presumption of notability - it does not preclude notability - should we delete the Sullivan brothers as well? If we had a standalone article for one of them, a merge might've been in the offing. However, as a set, they are notable as are discussed, e.g. .Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant. The problem with these sorts of guidelines is that people tend to forget that they don't actually decide whether an article is notable or not. They are merely a presumption that, if a topic meets certain criteria, they are likely to be notable. Which is to say, WP:GNG is what actually determines whether a topic is notable or not. There are individuals who do not meet SOLDIER but are certainly notable (Doris Miller is an obvious example), and conversely, those who do pass SOLDIER but aren't notable (witness the numerous Knight's Cross recipients that have been redirected over the years). Are there sources that cover these brothers in detail? If yes, then the topic is notable; if no, then it's not, regardless of whether the topic meets SOLDIER or not (I don't know in this case, I haven't looked). It's a simple question. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Only strong source I found with significant coverage is this Welt.de article: . The sources this article offers cannot be verified. At any rate, this is some brazen German/Nazi WWII romanticism and a quality article about these three—should it be possible to construct one—might well be restyled as that of a popular culture tall tale. There is a whole paragraph explaining the exploits and honors of the famous Von Blücher in a footnote..."He is honoured with a bust in the German Walhalla temple near Regensburg. The honorary citizen of Berlin, Hamburg and Rostock bore the nickname "Marschall Vorwärts" ("Marshal Forwards") because of his approach to warfare." Give me a break this article isn't even about him. Then we get to the actual brothers...under a section entitled Drama...it's like the article is making fun of itself. "The talented equestrian almost reached his brother's position, and in fact was shot before his brother's very eyes". How so tragic, so much wasted talent and right before his brother's very eyes. And then the brother was "hopelessly surrounded". Well good because I just ran out of hope for this article two sentences ago. Excuse me while I get my red pen and NPOV book and proceed to edit the crap out of this Wehrmacht press release. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: sources listed above are in passing and / or unreliable. This is a poorly sourced propaganda legend; does not meet WP:NFRINGE either. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, while there is a mention to a book by Beevor, Antony in "Further reading", there is no cite to it as to the subject of the article. Reading what is presented is trivial in nature and does not pass GNG for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the links Icewhiz has provided, they are mentioned substantially in both Antill and Beevor, neither of whom are sympathetic to Nazis and who would thus qualify as WP:RS. The Nisbett book seems to be romanticizing, but the article is actually based on information in Antill and Beevor. Given their mention in a Hitler speech, these brothers would seem to be a similar cause to the Sullivans (not suggesting any moral equivalency), and meet WP:GNG as a result of the mentions in Antill and Beevor. Kges1901 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Gnome, Icewhiz, and Kges1901. Appears to be a similar case to the Sullivan brothers and the Niland brothers, albeit on the other side. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (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.