Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Ruf (Waffen SS)


 * 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 delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hugo Ruf (Waffen SS)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unremarkable Waffen-SS member; significant RS coverage cannot be found; article is using unreliable sources such as Frontjkemper (forum dedicated to foreign SS "volunteers"); Wiking-Ruf ("Viking's Call" newsletter dedicated to SS division Wiking); etc.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus whether a single award of the Knight's Cross meets WP:SOLDIER #1, given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000). This article is part of about 500 similar articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in late 2008.

The article was discussed at AfD in 2009, closing as keep, based on the comparison to VC or MoH. However, the 2016 discussion above presents these comparisons as insufficient: "four times as many KCs awarded in 6 years as there have ever been for the VC, and twice as many as there have ever been for the US MOH. (...) There's a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it doesn't seem to be prestigious enough to merit inclusion based solely on receiving it."

Likewise, no new sources have been produced during the AfD nor biographical information added following it, resulting in a WP:DIRECTORY listing rather than a balanced biography. I don't believe such sources exist for this subject, and it does not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article under WP:BIO1E and failing to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Subject meets WP:SOLDIER. The nominator is on a de-Nazification streak ignoring WP:MILHIST consensus on subject notability and this ongoing trend begins to look like bad-faith to me. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Wikiprojects do not determine notability, only community as a whole; pls also see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Further, even members of the project acknowledge that not all KC awards qualify under WP:SOLDIER #1, since only a subset of them were awarded for valour, as required by SOLDIER. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't think SOLDIER should exist, nominating articles for deletion on the basis of your belief is POINTy, at best. You've been arguing this on the talk page and it appears not enough editors agree with you. Further, the SNG is about presumption of notability. I don't see evidence that Ruf didn't deserve a valor award so I'm presuming he's notable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- SOLDIER is an essay, not an SNG; there's no "presumption of notability" based on an essay that needs to be "refuted" by the nominator. In contrast, the notability needs to be positively demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources (as required by WP:SOLDIER). Such coverage cannot be located in this case, and because of this the article has been nominated for deletion under existing policies and guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I have expressed before on these articles, I don't feel that the sources provided meet the threshold required by WP:GNG. This one has a few different ones than some of the other one's that has nominated in the past, but I don't feel they meet the reliable sources criteria and agree with his reasoning in the nomination.  This one does appear to have been nominated for bravery/valor, so I'm actually more open to it than some of the others, but I would want to see some additional reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The multi-volume series by Wegmann et al will have a page or two on this chap. That and other mentions are enough to get him over the GNG line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- this is the same argument as offered in Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Beck, without producing the source or making sure that the content indeed exists. (The article was ultimately deleted). In any case, even if the source were produced, that would have been a single entry related to WP:BIO1E and would not have been sufficient, as other sources (Fellgiebel, Scherzer) are trivial one line mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Ruf was a member of the Waffen-SS. Thus it is unlikely that any information about him can be found in works that deal with recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Wehrmacht, including Thomas & Wegmann and Fellgiebel. Not that it would be a high quality work, but it seems that neither is he mentioned in Peter Strassner's history of the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking Europäische Freiwillige (dt. 1968; engl. European Volunteers). Thus it doesn't really surprise me, that the article merely references some unreliable (and mostly extinct) websites. The article itself provides only one information, namely that Ruf was awarded the Knight's Cross. In fact, all three sentences feature the word "awarded". In other words, there is no indication of Ruf's notability. Otherwise it wouldn't be so difficult to unearth even the most basic information.--Assayer (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable SS officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Another NN soldier. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the same can be said about these other articles; there's information and some sources about him, yes, but still not enough to actually in fact suggest his own convincing article, therefore it's imaginably better to simply list him elsewhere as part of another article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (R) It's pretty clear that the subject is not independently notable. Given the fact that the KC was awarded to so many recipients, I do not think that it confers an automatic notability. Neither is there the significant coverage required for GNG. I think stuff like this should be maintained in a list, which is why a redirect is the best solution here. The target page already contains the subject's info, so a redirect is best. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2016 (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.