Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Styr


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Josef Styr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unremarkable Waffen-SS man; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What comes up is from extremely WP:QS source Richard Landwehr.

Similar to AfD:Christian Bachmann, the article was created in early 2009 using non WP:RS sources, such as Axishistory.com and frontjkemper.info: 2009 version. It was one of about 500 articles created around that timeframe by editor Jim Sweeney (now retired). The only reliable citations that can be found is Veit Scherzer's Knight's Cross Holders book to confirm the receipt of the award, but this is insufficient to overcome WP:BIO1E and lack of reliable sources.

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).

Available sources on KC winners were discussed at Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer), with an insightful contribution from editor Assayer, who provided historiographic perspective on the sources (Thomas & Wegmann; Krätschmer; others) that were mentioned in related discussions. Per available information, such sources, even if available on the subject (which is not certain), are non-RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep With due respect to Assayer, that's one opinion. There are biographical entries on all these people in at least one of these multi-volume series by various authors in German, and yes, a series exists for Waffen-SS recipients. That, added to the other mentions in directories of KC recipients is, in my view, sufficient for GNG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Commment: 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) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment From 12 June 2003 to 4 January 2004, the Militärhistorisches Museum Flugplatz Berlin-Gatow, a branch of the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, and under the administration of MGFA, featured a special exhibition titled Das Eiserne Kreuz – Zur Geschichte einer Auszeichnung [The Iron Cross – The History of an Award]. At the museum, I bought a book by Thomas & Wegmann on this topic. In the lead, Thomas & Wegmann thanked the German Federal Archives, Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and the MGFA for their support and contribution in making this book possible. The works of Thomas & Wegmann may not be sufficient to qualify a KC recipient for the notability criteria of Wikipedia (your call to make), but I would disagree to say that they are unreliable sources and I would also disagree they were not endorsed (at least in 2003 they were). Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I see that the Thomas & Wegman books were sold in the museum, and that the authors thanked the Archives in the preface of the book. The latter is a routine "thank you" that one would normally see for granting access; the former does not imply an endorsements. We'd need something stronger to support that these books were endorsed by the MFGA. Some reviews were provided in AfD of Heinrich Debus and they are very far from an endorsement. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete my concern is not the r eliability of the sources so much as whether mere inclusion in them meets the threshold for notability at Wikipedia. Nothing in this article stands out from the other un of the mill KC recipient articles. If there are additional sources, I'd be happy to look at them and change my opinion, but I don't think the ones presented meet the notability guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Without clear evidence that he was remarkable. I am prepared to accept that Thomas & Wegmann may be a RS, but that does not make every recipient notable.  In contrast the British Victoria Cross was rarely awarded, so that all recipients are likely to be notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Same as with Bachmann. I do not hold the Stackpole military history series in high esteem, but even in the respective volumes by Samuel Mitcham there is no information on Styr. Minus the standard sentence concerning the nature of the KC, which by the way only tells half of the story by passing over, among others, aspects of propaganda, prestige and favoritism, we just learn the most basic biographical data. Articles like this come close to a directory of KC recipients, something which Wikipidia is not.--Assayer (talk) 23:46, 26 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.