Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Colditz Castle staff

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 14:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of Colditz Castle staff
A huge table full of non-notable people. Is there an expectation that there will be articles about all of these people? If not, what does this table serve? If so, do all of these people deserve articles? John Barleycorn 04:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a required spinoff from the Colditz Castle article if you would have bothered to look. To quote the top of the list page "This article has been spun off from Colditz Castle; please see that article for more information on the camp itself." As the primary article on Colditz Castle is already WAAAAY beyond recommended length, spinoffs are required. Keep and please go vfd something less useful.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 04:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand the hostility. Are you assuming that I did not read the very first words in the article?  Does spinning the non-notable off from a longer article somehow make them more notable?  Please explain how this information is useful.  John Barleycorn 04:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I assume you wouldn't have deleted it if it had remained in the main article, so you shouldn't try to carry out a "punishment deletion" now that people have followed Wikipedia's request and broken up a long article. I've never looked at either article, but the annoyance felt by someone who has edited them is quite understandable in my opinion. Osomec 05:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well for starters the grounds "Not notable" is not valid for VFD. Not to mention the fact that yes these people are indeed notable as most are referred to in the Colditz Castle article I turned into a FA (using exactly this kind of "not notable" detail). I find it extremely amusing that the Harry Potter article which has several spinoff lists, in particular a list of characters (all of which are fictional) is perfectly acceptable, yet a spinoff list of REAL PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVED goes up for vfd. Perhaps I did act hostile, I'm sorry, but the more I see this the more disgusted with WP in general I become.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 05:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am baffled. I have no idea why anyone thinks I am trying to punish anyone about anything.  I will admit that I had not looked at the Colditz Castle article and just happened to run across this, but if I had encountered that article, I would most certainly have begun a discussion on the Talk page as to why this information was necessary.  Since the information is now all that exists in the article under discussion, then, yes, VfD is the appropriate place to discuss the matter.  Why would I want to punish anyone with whom I have had no dealings, and wouldn't anyone who has worked on any article under VfD discussion also be annoyed?  Why is annoyance at this article being listed here be of any more significance than the annoyance of any other person at their information being listed for deletion?  Please, everyone, calm down, I am not trying to start a war or even an argument, just a discussion.  I see that you are somehow arguing that every real person deserves an article?  John Barleycorn 05:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry but VFD is not the place to start the discussion. First the talk page, then to RFC, and THEN to VFD is the appropriate order, If you are unsure its always best to ask other people first, get a few opinions, ask the writers of the article on the appropriate talk page FIRST. VFD should be the LAST place to go to discuss article content, unless its obviously junk like User:XYZ's Band's Fan page.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 05:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because they are making legitimate contributions to a major article, which often isn't the case, and people only split articles like this because Wikipedia asks them too. They have been very diligent, and this is the response.Osomec 05:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Colditz Castle is one of the best-known and most intriguing locations of the Second World War - a person studying it could find such a list of staff a great resource in tracking down further information Sherurcij 05:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. If nothing else, this information will date quickly, and a seriously doubt anyone's going to update it in the years to come (yeah, maybe once or twice, but what about 5 or 10 years down the road?). Articles like this may make wikipedia full of extrememly marginal, but at least accurate, information for the present moment, but they will only cause wikipedia to be full of misinformation in the near future. I bet there's an external link that can provide this information. -R. fiend 13:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and thank Alkivar for serving the users by moving this material out of the main article. Kappa 05:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly. But point out that non-notable is valid in VfD, it is used hundreds of times in VfD every day and, in the extreme, is a reason for speedy deletion on-sight. -Splash 05:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm surprised someone's actually found a full list of the Colditz Castle staff. It was one of the more notable events in WWII. I agree with Sherurci on this. --Dysepsion 05:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is mere Colditzcruft. WP is not toilet paper; delete. -- Hoary 06:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain - Votes for deletion/Precedents makes it quite clear that "not notable" is grounds for deletion. "For the purpose of the list below, notable is strictly defined as being very likely to get a consensus to keep if listed on VFD. Similarly, not notable is defined as being very likely to get a consensus to delete if listed on VFD." I'm straddling the fence on this one. It seems to me that the article is right on the borderline between "notable" and "not notable". Does anybody have any precedents they'd like to use? I'm currently leaning towards "not notable", and suggesting that ALKIVAR and Osomec think about starting a website dedicated to Colditz Castle for such trivia (which could be linked to from the Colditz Castle article). But it could well be that ALKIVAR's and Osomec's rudeness is coloring my judgement. Could we maybe stop voting on this for a week and come back when cooler heads might prevail? crazyeddie 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete had a chance to think about it. crazyeddie 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While Colditz is undoubtably notable, working as a private guiding it isn't. Similarly, Alcatraz was notable but that doesn't mean that a list of every person who worked there would be. Capitalistroadster 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fuck it, didn't notice the years. (Well, the title made it seem like it was the present staff.) No vote yet, I have to think about this one. -R. fiend 13:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A list of those who tried to prevent the escapes is as useful as the unchallenged lists of those who escaped and attempted to escape from Colditz castle during WWII. Listing the German staff helps round out the article by showing another part of the German side of the story. If Harry Potter can list fictional characters, then we can list real German POW camp staff. DonBruce 16:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A major difference between this list and a list of Harry Potter characters is that very many of the Harry Potter characters have their own articles, which the list of characters links to. I don't think any of the staff of this German POW camp are notable to merit their own article. crazyeddie 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Seven edits before this, only one to an article (most to Talk:Colditz castle). --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as Capitalistroadster. --Tim Pope 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Excessively long (I fail to see the need to list EVERY person who worked at Colditz Castle, Lance Corporals and the like strike me as unencyclopedic trivia) but it's a historical resource. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Some obscure information is going to lack notability but still be useful to scholars and researchers. I disagree that the information is trivial.  Obscure, yes, but potentially useful.  Since wikipedia is not paper I'd like to see this information retained. Tobycat 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup This seems to be fairly important, but I can understand why it was considered for vfd. The page is simply a list, with a brief reference to the parent page.  A nice introduction (could be copied from the parent article) explaining the significance of the list would go a long way. ManoaChild 21:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. As it stands it's really just a list, but some preamble (at least mentioning the dates covered in general) would improve this no end. Tonywalton 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, certainly - a credit to Wikipedia in my view james gibbon  23:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for nonnotability. Nandesuka 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sabine's Sunbird 14:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't se the point of this; it is clearly non-encyclop&aelig;dic. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's historically significant why is it non-encylopedic? David D. (Talk) 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Castle is historically significant; the list of staff isn't. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - List of non-prominent people in a prominent place is not any more prominent than they are - Skysmith 09:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Doesn't offend anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.2.18 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 August 2005
 * Delete per Mel Etitis. It certainly didn't belong in the main article, but by itself does not merit an article. Details are good, but excesive detail (Would the daily menu over the entire history of the castle be useful as it's own article? Probably not.) doesn't have a home. --Icelight 23:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tries very hard, but lots of question marks which will never be filled, and lots of gaps; it is neither fish nor fowl. Table does not allow for promotions. Includes "one from the totally separate SS concentration camp". "These are the named members of the German staff from 1939 to 1945 at Colditz castle" doesn't fill me with confidence. Without access to the books listed as sources, none of it can be trusted; of no use to scholars or researchers. None of the sources look like official German personnel manifests. Keep the commandants, ditch the rest. in the midst of it someone has linked the word 'legal', which is... touching.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems like this list could be a useful reference. There are references provided, even if they don't look like personnel manifests.  Maybe at some point someone would be able to fill in some question marks, perhaps descendents of the staff.  4.240.162.109 03:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If the descendants were to do that directly, their additions would probably be dismissed as unverifiable, and rightly so. The additional information would have to come from books. There's probably much more to be written about Nazism and its appeal to many people, but perhaps not very much more in the way of Colditzcruft that's waiting to be published: as a sizable and apparently insatiable market for works about Nazi trivia (uniforms, etc etc) has existed for years, there has long been a big commercial incentive to publish. -- Hoary 06:17, August 12, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.