Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Brommann


 * 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   keep. X clamation point  06:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Karl Brommann

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article (as well as numerous others by the same user) cover people whose sole claim to notability is that they recieved at WW II medal which over 7,000 other people received as well. I don't think that that qualifies as sufficient notability for an inclusion in an encylopedia. Passportguy (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the highest award for bravery of Germany during World War II. Passportguy is correct over 7,000 were awarded but to a force of over 20 million which I believe is 1,000 recipients for every 3 million in the German forces of WWII. At least two of the recipients Eugene Vaulot and Henri Joseph Fenet have featured as DYK articles. We also have at least two Featured Lists for Knight's Cross recipients List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service which achieved Featured status because all of the recipients had their own articles. If we are going to purge Knight's Cross recipients are we also going to purge Victoria Cross. Medal of Honour and even George Cross recipients as all they are notable for is they recieved a medal ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The other two lists you mentioned have signifantly fever people on them (tens or low hundreds). The problem with the above page is that he recieved an award which was given to thousands. If you add all people at recieved such a wide-spread awards in some army of the world, we are looking at hundreds of thousands new pages on people with no other notability than recieving an award. A list listing all recipients may be ok (although even that is rather questionable with 7,000 names) but individual pages are not warranted. Passportguy (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Victoria Cross has 1,356 recipients the Medal of Honour has 3,465 recipients just because the Knights Cross had 7,000 does not make it any less notable. Recipients are also more notable then members of E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) who were depicted in TV programme. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to advocate including a person here just because he recieved a Knights Cross either. However notability does correlate with the rarity of an award. No noble prize winner is notable, a school science fair award winner is not. the more common an award is, the less likely it is to qualify a person as notable on its own. Passportguy (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I advocate to summarize these people in a list or a series of lists, but not create 7k stubs. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The other two lists you mentioned have signifantly fever people on them (tens or low hundreds). The problem with the above page is that he recieved an award which was given to thousands Just because thousands were awarded does not make it not notable. It can no longer be awarded being a decoration of Nazi Germany where as the VC and MOH are still awarded by there respective countries - who is to say how many will be awarded in the future when teh MOH gets to 7,000 do we delete all the articles ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by MisterBee1966
First, I want to refer to Notabilty guid of the military history project. I suggest that notability of the Knight’s Cross is taken up with the Military history project. My understanding is that the notability of Knight’s Cross recipients has been established before. Deleting an article without the consent of this community seems most odd.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to note that the notability guidelines refer to "Recipients of a country's highest military decoration" which the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was not. The highest award was the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross.

The article also fails the other three guidelines :
 * People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant +portion of one) in combat.
 * Holders of top-level command positions (such as Chief of the General Staff).
 * People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works.

Passportguy (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Coment Using the above argument we would have to delete all the Victoria Cross articles as the highest award in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms is the Order of the Garter limited to 24 recipients at any one time Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Receiving a country's highest award for military valor in a major world war is a very strong argument for notability. As for the "thousands of stubs" argument, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Using that criterion, we'd have to delete a majority of the 3400 United States Medal of Honor recipients, or members of the United States House of Representatives or British House of Commons, not to mention most of the geography articles in WP. Rklear (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was not the highest award ! Passportguy (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the highest award for bravery the Grand Cross was awarded to victorious Generals Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was awarded to exactly one victorious general, Hermann Göring. Rklear (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet notability criteria.  The question of the highest award does not hinge on eligibility for it. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is very sad that this person fought for Adolf Hitler, THE MOST EVIL POLITICAL LEADER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. However (I am assuming what is written in the article is true and accurate regarding his actions and the sources) he did play a notable part in the war, which has been documented by reliable secondary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "he did play a notable part in the war". That's exactly my point. He did not, as is there not notable enough for inclusion in an encylopedia. Passportguy (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says he destroyed over 100 enemy tanks or guns, and was awarded 8 medals. I hate Nazis as much as anyone, and my father killed many in WW2.  However, rewriting history because we don't like something that happened is exactly the kind of thing the Western allies were fighting against. And I think Brommann is notable for what he did regardless of the medals, if a Union officer in the Civil War had done the same I don't think there would be any question about his WP notability.Northwestgnome (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Individual and award are notable, and pass MILHIST notability guidelines. Fail to see a problem here. Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Received the highest award for military valor that an enlisted soldier was able to receive. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As the creater I presume my vote is taken for granted - but just in case Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He won multiple awards it seems, far more notable than the average soldier in WWII. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment : If the majority intends to keep this article, I don't have a major problem with that. I just have the impression that most people commenting here are not aware wehat that means : If the president of Guinea-Bissau were to bestow a thousand people with that countries highest military honour, then all would qualify as individualWikipedia entries !!
 * I am just saying that we should really think twice before setting a precedent which would seriously expand the scope of what is included in this encylopedia. Karl Brommann was a tank commander which did what many tank commanders did in the war : destroy tanks. There is nothing in the article to suggest that he did anything extraordinary, e.g. set the world record for the most tanks destroyed in a war or that he took a leading role in a famous military operation. The only reason he is on Wikipedia is the fact that he received a medal that 7,000+ others received as well. Passportguy (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By that definition, all that the Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross recipients did was kill people (Insert tanks/aircraft/rescue people etc where required), which is what lots of other soldiers did in the war, and often didn't get recognized for it. And you can see how that is dodgy reasoning. Skinny87 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is the fear that someone will create 7,000 articles (for each winner) realistic? Vartanza (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - He was also mentioned specifically in the Wehrmachtbericht. Surely he's notable enough. Also, we're nearly to 2.75 million articles; another 7,000 aren't that big of a deal Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable per guidlines (was a recipient of his nation's highest award), and has several published sources that mention him. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and reconsider the apparent granting of inherent notability to anyone in the world who received his country's "highest military honor." Each recipient, to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, should have received significant coverage in multiple reliable abd independent publications. This would likely be so for many Iron Cross recipients, and the resulting articles, with the required references included, would be better than stubs which mirror some governmental database. Not everyone given a Hero Medal by Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe or Saddam Hussein should automatically get an encyclopedia article.Some dictators such as Hitler or Joseph Stalin gave out some Hero Medals to non-notable kissups, yes-men and political hacks. By  1945, Hitler and his henchmen might have just been giving out medals like candy for propaganda, in a vain effort to bolster morale. This guy PERSONALLY "destroyed 65 tanks and self-propelled guns along with 44 artillery pieces and 15 vehicles?" Edison (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the key phrase in what you just said was "might just have been". If you don't have proof that Hitler was giving out medals like candy, then it's just as likely that he wasn't as it is that he was since we don't know. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the sources state he destroyed that many vehicles, then it's likely he did - god knows there were enough Soviet vehicles to go around by the end of the war. Skinny87 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More comments Maybe this is irrelevant to the discussion here but over the past two to three years I've been trying to contribute to the Knight's Cross, List of the Knight's Cross recipients and individual recipients articles here on Wiki. I own over 100 hundred publications related to this topic, I visited the German National Archives and have access to some of the files myself. I run into these generalising statements like "they were handed out like candy" many, many times. My personal belief is that this is wrong (maybe there are exceptions to the rule). My perception so far was that Wikipedia provides a forum to objectively collect and present all verifiable information regarding people of notability. So the question that seems to be answered is the Knight's Cross a "candy award" and thus irrelevant for establishing notability? This is a chicken and egg question. If we don't let the individual actions of these recipients speak for themselves than how are we going to establish lasting notability for this award? That doesn't mean that I cannot be convinced otherwise but it will take more than a generalising statement about a "candy award"! MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe this section from the Battle in Berlin article shows they were not given out like candy That afternoon the last two Knight's Crosses of the Third Reich were awarded one when to Eugéne Vaulôt who had personally destroyed eight tanks and Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzig the commander of the 503 SS Heavy Panzer Battalion. Two others received less prestigious awards for only knocking out five tanks each.ref name=Beevor-352.Beevor, [#References|references] p.352 ref Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep why is that a fear? I hope people will do exactly that, and similarly for other orders of this magnitude. NOT PAPER. This is a notable accomplishment, regardless of the nature of the government.  More specifically, judging by the article, this was not in any sense an award given for unimportant accomplishments. DGG (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets notability guidelines by getting the highest award for military valor for his country. Edward321 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Exactly the kind of subject that one would expect a non-paper general encyclopedia to cover. If 7000 people received this award then that means that we should have 7000 articles about them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, for all the reasons mentioned by other keep voters. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets notability guidelines, received highest award for military valor for his country, and there are references. Rosiestep (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, a Panzer Ace is not notable?
KEEP. An obvious keep. This man, as Misterbee1966 says, was awarded one of the highest awards in German military history. He is an ace, all aces whether they be pilots, U-Boat commanders or Tank aces deserve a place on wikipedia. Would editors be questioning the notability of this guy if he was from the Western Allied nations? How can anyone say this man and his record is not important? Insane. Dapi89 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, would people stop calling, or implying, this man is a Nazi. Not all soldiers in the Waffen-SS were so. Unless any of you have sources, avoid the slanderous comments. Dapi89 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was using the word in a kind of generic sense. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Without a faintest doubt! Typically I'd have glossed over the Article supporting deletion. But given the kind of record this person raked killing tanks, it sure deserves a definite place in history. Irrespective of the Knight's Cross, this person was injured twice in the line of duty but went on to rake an impressive score anyway. That right there if does not mark his place in history then I don't know what will! The award is definitely NOT the only claim to fame the Tank Ace is ! Just because its Start today, does not mean it needs to be deleted. Who knows if we had more facts about this person, we may discover that he possibly could have done something way more than what we know to deserve a place.


 * Saying that there are 7000 articles or that it was a Candy award is not only trivializing of a great honor, but borderline insult to a recognition only brave men received. Irrespective of who gave that honor the person who received that award did a LOT for their country in the line of Duty. That is the whole and ONLY point here. In my humblest opinion, this kind of thinking leads to criticism that was heaped on Black Hawk Down. Like Dapi said, just because this person served in SS, he can not be discredited. If we must follow this logic, why do we keep an Article on all the dictators like Stalin or Monsters like Hitler ? Surprise! why do we keep article on Waffen SS or even Nazism even ? Would we want to delete that ? I believe not. for that matter we wouldn't want to remove articles of other Knights Cross recipients just because they are stubs! 7000 or not. Highest or not we need to focus on the act of bravery of a Human being at the end of the day. It doesn't matter who or where that human being was from. Perseus71 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2009 (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.