Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Thoma (general)


 * 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. As far as I can see, NSOLDIER is an essay, and even though the convention may be to treat it as a notability guideline, arguments based on it carry lower weight. As a result I do not see clear consensus here, and this has been open for a month. I strongly recommend that the status of NSOLDIER be clarified via an RfC or equivalent; written policy being at odds with current practice is rarely a sustainable thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Heinrich Thoma (general)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability in the article and nothing significant found in Google Books or Google searches. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 16.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I was able to find biographical details   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are either of those WP:RS? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete while his ranks meets #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is just a presumption and I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect Presumption of notability does not apply if a thorough before search is done. The first source cited by Hawkeye is not reliable; the second, whether it is reliable or not, is just a database entry. Therefore, this individual is not notable and should be redirected to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (T), where he is listed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable per WP:SOLDIER, which is generally held as being the standard notability guideline for general officers (despite its status as an essay), as both a general and a divisional commander. Consensus is clearly to keep officers of this rank per that guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your reading of WP:SOLDIER which makes it clear that "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable" in spite of the rank-based presumption. It also begs the question of why the apparently non-notable commander of an apparently non-notable division ought to have an article. Wikipedia is not in the business of being a phonebook for Nazi military functionaries! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, so is it the fact he was a Nazi (no proof he was, of course) that bothers you? That's not a reason to get an article deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my motivation, but I'll admit it gives me cause for thought. Wikipedia's vast array of obscure and non-notable Nazi generals does not seem to be mirrored in our coverage of (for example) Nigerian, Swiss, or Brazilian armies which no doubt have also produced their own equally interesting non-entities. Oddly, the same problem does not often seem to arise! But this is off topic. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone cared to write articles about (for example) Nigerian, Swiss, or Brazilian generals then they would be equally notable per WP:SOLDIER! -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. The modern Australian Defence Force, for example, has dozens of general-level officers who are almost entirely unknown outside the military and not the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Other militaries have even bigger problems with 'rank inflation'. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So what you're basically saying is that you don't agree with WP:SOLDIER? Well, I do and so do many other editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think you are following WP:SOLDIER correctly for the reason stated in my earlier post. It is clear that there are many circumstances in which Generals will not be notable where they are not covered by WP:RS. Nigeria, incidentally, had literally hundreds of generals at any one time and recently promoted 31 to Major General in one go. As Nick-D says, this kind of thing is not unusual. The US has more than 400 at any one time. We'd be mad to treat all of them as notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have said to Necrothesp on several occasions recently, just being a General is not inherently notable, #2 of WP:SOLDIER is not an automatic pass on notability, its just a presumption, they must also SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Necrothesp claims there is a consensus that Generals are inherently notable, but these discussions show that is not the case. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SOLDIER is a Wikiproject-level notability essay, so not too much weight should be put on it. The guidance on generals is simply ill-informed. For instance, the modern Thai military has more than 1700 general-level officers! . Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, so the new argument is that people in the wikiproject don't know what they're talking about! First a guideline that has been accepted for years has been dismissed as rubbish by a handful of editors, then the people who formulated it and continue to use it are dismissed as ignorant. Great! Thanks for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even reading WP:SOLDIER alone, I still don't see how this argument is tenable: "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable." This seems basic common sense. You made a jibe about me having no evidence for Thoma having been a Nazi, but we actually have no WP:RS evidencing his actual existence. It's interesting how many generals appear in the List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, including this recently spotted example. Besides, what exactly is the point for our readership in having access to an article which has virtually no actual information in it? It may be worth raising this for future discussion on WP:MILHIST if clarification/rewriting is necessary. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, his existence, rank and commands are attested in a perfectly reliable source. Also, please see WP:STUB. Short articles are perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That ref is one line, hardly SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And my comment was clearly simply a refutation of the above comment: ...we actually have no WP:RS evidencing his actual existence. Which is simply not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As has been pointed out above, NSOLDIER is not a notability guideline, but an essay. The fact people meeting NSOLDIER tend to be kept at AfD has no direct bearing on future discussions.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking on Google Books, there seems to be quite a bit of mention of him, in various campaigns, and mentions of him being an olympian? He was a general, and also, he was awarded the Iron Cross, so clearly he has performed something of note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is presumably Heini Thoma, a separate person, but please do share any WP:RS that provide "significant coverage" of the subject. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there has been the assertion of sources being present they have not been listed in a way that let's others verify notability. The majority of discussion is over how we should use the essay NSOLDIER and this is the wrong place for such a discussion.
 * Keep meets SOLDIER on both rank and size of command, and also has the Knight's Cross which means that there is several books on recipients that provide bio details. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, a book worth looking into was written by Christian Hartmann: Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg. Front und militärisches Hinterland 1941/42 [Wehrmacht in the Eastern-War. Front and Military Rear Area 1941/42]. Oldenbourg, Munich 2009; 2nd edition 2010, ISBN 978-3-486-70225-5. The book revealed Heinrich Thoma's antisemitic view while serving with 296th Infantry Division. At the time, Thoma was the regimental commander of the 519th Infantry Regiment, a regiment of the 296th ID. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect: to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (T). I recognize that he does meet SOLDIER in name, and MisterBee's source may have enough to write an article, but right now we aren't losing any detail by instead redirecting it. If enough coverage to merit a stand-alone article is found, it can be recreated. Please ping me if the article is dramatically expanded. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nazi fancruft. WP:SOLDIER is an essay and therefore irrelevant. If there are no sources and nothing to write about him except that he got a medal once, there is no content for an article here (WP:NOPAGE).  Sandstein   08:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Untrue. We have a full resume. Enough to create an article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I find these insinuations that generals should not be considered notable just because they fought for the Third Reich uncomfortable in a serious encyclopaedia, as they reflect personal opinion only. "Nazi fancruft" is also highly insulting, as it implies the article was created by someone who supported the Nazis, as opposed to someone who believed that a "two-star" general and divisional commander might just be notable no matter which army he served in. Either all senior officers are presumed notable as long as they meet the criteria of WP:SOLDIER, including those of "discredited" regimes, or none are. In the latter case, I fail to see why WP:SOLDIER even exists. Although given the opinion above that it is "irrelevant" I think we know where some editors stand. WP:IDONTLIKEIT springs to mind. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because of WP:SOLDIER and sources mentioned above. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as he appears to meet the WP:SOLDIER requirements. Also, this comment by Necrothesp is very well taken, considering what has been happening on Wikipedia lately. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't Let's Be Beastly to the Germans. I note that no-one seems to have taken any notice of 's relisting comment: "While there has been the assertion of sources being present they have not been listed in a way that let's others verify notability. The majority of discussion is over how we should use the essay NSOLDIER and this is the wrong place for such a discussion." In fact, this exact point has now been made twice.—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Most comments have actually said that he's notable because he clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER, which provides a presumption of notability rather than non-notability for generals as some strangely seem to misinterpret it as doing. Given this is a recognised Wikipedia notability standard (despite it only being an essay) this is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, given that reliable sources have been provided proving that he did hold general officer rank. I'm afraid that they have not been listed in a way that let's others verify notability is utter rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no idea how it is possible to read WP:SOLDIER in the way you suggest: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they [meet a listed condition]". I really don't see the issue, since the "significant coverage" requirement is basically fundamental to Wikipedia as a project.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they [meet a listed condition]. Precisely. Meeting the SNG criteria (which he clearly does) is a presumption of notability! I just don't get why this is confusing to some editors. It's quite clear from the opinions expressed here (and in many other similar AfDs) that it is quite clear to most. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SOLDIER is not an SNG; it's an essay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which as we all know has long been accepted as an SNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp you continue to misrepresent WP:SOLDIER first as though its a rule and then in relation to the presumption. As was noted by User:EyeSerene in the [] discussion that led to the WP:SOLDIER essay "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." Rather than referring to your list of military bio AfDs, you should look at that discussion to see what was the basis for WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

KEEP. I believe there is coverage in sources — though I'd have to do some digging. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (T): does not meet WP:BASIC. The often-mentioned WP:SOLDIER is a project-specific essay, not a notability guideline / SNG. Most of the "keep" ivotes are thus not policy-based. The sources offered above -- http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Personenregister/T/ThomaHeinrich.htm and http://wwiihistorycenter.org/research_database/germany/germanmilitarypersonnelt.html are non-RS and, at best, represent a rendition of some primary source. In the absence of significant coverage, a redirect to a list article where the subject is mentioned is the best approach. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * However Notability_(people) refers editors to WP:SOLDIER, which means the community has accepted WP:SOLDIER as a valid guide on the notability of military personnel. --Nug (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Precisely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on! Notability_(people) makes the specific caveat that: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. " —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on! How does that make your claim any more valid, given, as you cite above, Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. AfDs have generally accepted that meeting the criteria of WP:SOLDIER is a valid reason to keep. There is huge precedent and consensus for this, as I have shown. As I have said, with two exceptions (one from years ago which would probably hold no water today; one from a country that promotes ludicrous numbers of officers to general rank), no two-star or more senior officer has ever been deleted at AfD, and only a tiny number of one-star officers ever have been. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is all you're effectively saying, is no reason to go against that precedent and consensus. It's been built over many years for a reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I fear this discussion is going round in circles. I have never argued that generals cannot be notable in principle and I accept the proposition in WP:SOLDIER that generals will often be notable. However, I believe, based on the policies already set out extensively above, that it is "significant coverage" in reliable sources that is determinitive - in this area, as in any other in Wikipedia. A couple of mentions of someone's existence, in my opinion, cannot come close to meeting this requirement. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You've conveniently ignored Mitcham, which is a perfectly reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2020 (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.