Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Clade


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Emil Clade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG, N (people) and OR. Sources do not meet RS requirements. Atsme 📞📧 18:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding - I think WP:V is probably more at issue here because the article has not met that requirement, either. Atsme 📞📧 19:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A Google Books search shows that he is notable and the basics are easily verifiable. The article should be improved rather than being deleted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link, just passing mentions and / or non-RS militaria / hobbyist literature, such as John Weal and Jerry Scutts.
 * No de.wiki article exists. Did not hold a significant command and topped out as Captain. Successful completion of missions (sorties flown, # of enemy aircraft shot down, etc) is not part of SOLDIER. A MilHist RfC on this topic has failed to gain consensus in May of 2017:
 * RfC on the notability of flying aces.
 * As an alternative to deletion, the article could be redirected to List of World War II aces from Germany (the article had been restored from a redirect; I guess that's why it ended up in the NPP queue). However, deletion would be a preferred action, as the article history is not worth preserving. Sources listed there are WP:POV / WP:SPIP and none pass RS. The rest of the article is uncited.
 * A redirect of the name only could be done later at editorial discretion. Additionally, a redirect has already been attempted, so a deletion would be a cleaner outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes GNG with ample sourcing available in even a cursory google-books check (surviving to a ripe age after the war, it also seems he talked quite a bit to various authors). Aces are generally notable, and meet SOLDIER(4) Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign; - the exception is some German aces over the eastern front where kill counts were high and sourcing on the aces with "lower scores" is not as ample - in this case this a flyer over the western front - and sources are copious. The RFC perhaps closed with no-consensus on a five-kill threshold, but here we have 27. In addition, we also meet SOLDIER(5) Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents), as his actual role (as opposed to rank) of Gruppenkommandeur is equivalent to an air-group or US-wing. And finally, we should reiterate SOLDIER is an essay, which is trumped by GNG, which in this case is clearly met.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would those editors claiming he is Notable and in RS books please cite those RS in the article? Apparently, the article creator wasn't able to find all the books being claimed that establish WP:N. It would be greatly appreciated if and  would be so kind as to cite the RS in the article, and I will be happy to withdraw this AfD if the RS pass WP:RS required for notability and WP:V. Atsme 📞📧 20:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sourcing in the article could be improved. However one is expected to do a WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD - and in this particular case - he's been written about at length in several books (several pages long in several different books (ranging as far as book such as this one - on the killing of General Gott (frankly - I found it odd this was topic worth) - but several others out there). I will work on this later this week (if not taken up by someone else, I'm returning from travelling). The article was created back in 2007 - when standard were a bit lower. The article's text seem OK (though it could be greatly expanded) - just the referencing is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 15:37, September 23, 2017 (UTC)
 * Snarky doesn't help find RS to establish notability for this article, which by the way, was created in 2007. One would think that over the course of 8 years, it would be properly sourced to establish notability. Clade's self-published autobiography Glück gehabt doesn't meet the requirement, and neither does passing mention in books. In-depth articles published about him at non-notable websites don't meet the requirement, books written by those who served with/under him don't pass as independent of the subject, and neither do image captions or passing mention in books by non-notable authors that don't qualify as "historians". The information I've seen about Clade appears to be anectdotal (with discrepencies among sources) so it fails WP:V and WP:N; the latter of which states: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. I have not seen any indication that such sources exist. The article's creator states on his user page "If somebody deletes, reverts or disfigures my contributions, do not expect any discussion from my side." Atsme 📞📧 02:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, there are quite a few RS who cover Clade at great length. His autobio is not needed (and I don't think it itself was covered in a manner that would meet AUTHOR). There really are quite a few sources. I will not comment on the article's original creator - and perhaps some or even many of his articles do not meet notability - however in this particular case this is a notable subject.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors typically cite a few RS they believe will support their position, so please feel free to do so - show us the RS and I'll withdraw this AfD. Atsme 📞📧 12:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You had me at my B-game - was on vacation abroad with limited access. Please look at the article now - I added several sources. Still a bit messy - but sources are there.Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the point of meeting SOLDIER#5 (significant body of troops in battle). "III./JG 27" was a sub-unit of JG 27; the commander of the unit would be Geschwaderkommodore (Wing Commander). In any case, the appointment occurred in February 1945, and by that time sorties were severely limited due to lack of fuel and trained pilots. Luftwaffe had ceased to be an effective fighting force. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is still a 3-4 squadron force (30-40 aircraft) - which is at most one notch beneath the notability guideline (given the amorphous stricture of air groups and wings throughout the century). He definitely held a position well above his pay grade. However, even if we strike SOLDIER(5) - he still meets GNG. There is copious sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * DElete -- This is about whether his WWII career was important enough for notability. He reached Gruppenkommandeur on an acting basis and scored the odd victory over Spitfires.  I am doubtful if that is senior enough to merit automatic notability.  We do not treat lieutenant-colonels as automatically notable, I think.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- He survived and could report later on. That is maybe the most important thing here. As a German I can understand why he is not mentioned in the German wikipedia (he is completely unknown in Germany). But this is not the German wikipedia. --Metrancya (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I just did a tiny bit of clean up, and it seems that the sources are of high enough quality that we can verify this. Although there is a bit of stuff that is not cited, this wouldn't be something that should be TNTd. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">会話 <sub style="color:#D7000B;">投稿記録  16:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - I'm on the fence...and the reason is that the cited books are about notable pilots like Hans Marseille, Hugh James and William Gott, whereas Clade gets passing mention, some of which are simply his recollections of the battles and notable pilots. We could say "stack" satisfies GNG because the respective book authors thought him important enough to get his statement but that still teters on notable. I was hoping to withdraw this AfD but I think it would be best to let it run its course and allow consensus to decide. I know Icewhiz is putting a great deal of effort into this article and just want him to know that I truly do appreciate what he's done. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 17:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note Gott was not a pilot, but the commanding general of the 8th army. He was killed by Clade (shot down by him, strafed by a junior pilot on the ground). Gott was then replaced by Monty. So yes, killing the opposinng commanding general of the theatre did indeed generate quite a bit of coverage for Clade (in many books covering Gott or his replacement), and is another point in regards to SOLDIER4. This had an effect on the African campaign as a whole, though quite possible Monty as a eplacement was "bad news" in hindsight for the nazis.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:V, most the major bits clealy pass and are sourced. Some more minor bits (e.g. posting as a flight instructor) are not. Since I believe these were probably sourced from somewhere in 2007 (most of the original article jived with the sources), and I see some evidence for some of them (e.g. mentions in German regarding civil aviation activities post war) did not remove them yet.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete being a "flying ace" is not grounds for notability, and we lack the sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete In its current state the article features a lot of references, but at a closer look these reference appear to be the result of some indiscriminate google search. I checked some of the references. Peter Caddick-Adams' biography Monty and Rommel, for example, is used to reference the sentence: Clade’s attack forced the transport to crash land. While Caddick-Adams notes that in 2005 Clade had told the pilot Jimmy James that "his squadron had been congratulated on the killing as soon as they landed," there is no mentioning that it was Clade's attack which forced the crash landing. According to Caddick-Adams it was "a flight of Messerschmitt 109s from JG27 which set the engines on fire". On a sidenote, Clade's story from 2005 is highly unlikely. How could the Germans have known of any killing before their squadron even had landed? Who did the reconnaissance? The notion that Clade indirectly made a potentially decisive impact on the future course of the African campaign is a badly sourced excersise in speculation clad in weasel words. Other than that the article features a lengthy paragraph about the damage JG 27 wrought to the Allied forces in January 1945. Clade's role in that is apparently limited to an "escort mission against Utrecht". As a reference, among others,  the "book" The Cruel Slaughter of Adolf Hitler II by some karsten friedrich is used. That is actually a compilation of articles taken directly from Wikipedia  and published on the self-publishing platform Lulu. Just look up Operation Bodenplatte and compare that to "friedrich's" chapter. Some general information has also been transposed via c&p from Operation Bodenplatte to Emil Clade, see the sentences following The attack caused considerable damage among the units based there and was a great success... The full bibliographical details of Manrho & Pütz 2004, p. 217, Weal 2003, p. 117 and Franks 2000, p. 134 have been lost on the way. Other than that there is an self published autobiography by Clade which has been used by some authors, but hardly for anything more than a quote, duly reported by Wikipedia.  His credit of 26 or 27 kills is unremakable for a pilot of the Luftwaffe regardless of which front. It was not enough to earn him a Knight's Cross. His role in German civilian aviation after the war is limited to the fact that he taught flying and participated in the de:Deutschlandflug as more than hundred other aviators routineley did. --Assayer (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. In general, we have kept articles on air aces. There are countless articles on men whose only notability is being an ace, usually with far fewer kills than Clade. No reason to single him out for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Air aces are not by default presumed to be notable. This has recently been clarified via the RfC below:
 * RfC on the notability of flying aces.
 * There was no support to add aces to the WP:SOLDIER criteria. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC had mixed results, for a 5 kill cutoff. In practice we keep most aces if sourcing meets GNG, even barely.Icewhiz (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't have a dog in this fight. In general, if the sources are considered WP:RS and the information provided on the person's life/activities is sufficient in notable detail, then he passes GNG. That is what needs to be determined. As a note, the RFC mentioned above was not conclusive for either side. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2017 (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.