Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi Party members


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Nazi Party members

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

AfDs for this article: 

The list is built on a similar list that existed on the German Wikipedia but which has been turned into a category. Over half of the entries in the list does not have articles in en.wikipedia yet, and therefore are of questionable notability. The list should be turned into a category also here at the English wikipedia, new category members can be added as their articles are translated from German. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that the missing articles have been removed I see no reason for deletion.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible keep Far superior to a category given that soon enough this will be fully sourced and a category will not be. Bad faith nom given that this is in the process of being referenced and I'm spending a lot of time doing so. If you categorize any of these entries as "Nazis" this is not sourced. This list should be FULLY sourced and will be given a week or so. I think it is a highly valuable page and if sourced and verifiable should not be controversial. This list is more important than many other lists on wikipedia. I am gradually sourcing this list and along the way am finding some very notable biographies which are missing and should be blue linked asap. Maunuas has no idea what he is talking about,  just because they are red linked - every biography I've come across so far which is missing is notable (and has a decent article on German wiki), some of them are of high importance and should not be missing from wikipedia. It is far more beneficial for wikipedia to keep this list and ensure that it its sourced entirely and to begin esnuring each has an article (which I'm gradually doing).♦  Dr. Blofeld  12:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral I think that there would be less problem if the entries were actual articles and properly sourced. Explaination, there was an OTRS complaint about an unsourced red link that was, in my opinion, perfectly justified. My view is that any unsourced entry must be removed pdq to avoid harm to any surviving relatives. I am unimpressed by Blofeld's attitude to this because there is no real reason under any policy to retain unsourced redlinks in a list like this. Spartaz Humbug! 12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The IDEA is that neither is red linked or unsourced. Wikipedia is a working progress, eventually I want each name to be sourced AND with a nice article to boot. Yes the names should be referenced asap but please look up each of these names on German wikipedia and you'll see that each is notable. The task now should be to ensure each is transwikied but I can't do it by myself. Why do you think there are no red links in section A and the start of B? Because I've started those which were red linked there myself. We'd be better off in the long term having a comprehensive coverage on this and with articles red linked it gives something to work towards ensuring they have articles. One solution of course would be to source all existing articles and hide the red linked names until the articles can be started and blue linked but that is likely to diminish the chance that somebody other than myself who knows they are hidden will start a missing article. ♦  Dr. Blofeld  13:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think we can leave these around for ages unfilled and unsourced. Why don't you take them off line and restore them when there is a source and an article? That would mean that everyone was happy. Spartaz Humbug! 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - It is also possible to link intermediately to the German wikipedia with e.g. de:Gerhard_Mackenroth but I'm not sure how helpful that is for people who don't understand German. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means use the sources from the German wikipedia to source these but the German wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for anything, let alone an allegation as serious as this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking in lines of sourcing but pointing out a poissble temporary working tool. Such a link indicates that the German wikipedia currently has an article which can be verified whether or not it states that the person has been a party member and what references are given there, e.g often the one by Ernst Klee. Not linking is perfectly fine with me, but if there are principal doubts it might be better to examine the approach of systematically transwiki them. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably a bot could do that. Spartaz Humbug! 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was just thinking of that. Instead of a red link you could have the German link at leats until the article is put in english. See the example of Veit Ulrich von Beulwitz and Lothar Beutel in the list. Naturally though every entry in the list will need to be sourced, missing or not, so it shouldn't be a problem and given the amount of content missing, a list is productive I think. Forgive me for having "attitude" on this but try psending a considerable amount of time on something and bothering to start sourcing it and then you see an AFD on it..♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD wouldn't have been my choice for this article. I can see the utility of the list as soon as the unsourced redlinked issue is resolved but either taking them offline or moving them to an noroboted area like someones userspace would be an acceptable intermediate step. Spartaz Humbug! 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to try to get at least half of it sourced today, I can't now as it might be to no avail!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about the incubator?--Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * that's fine by me, it can have a norobots tag added but, honestly, there isn't any reason to take it from mainspace if we just removed the unsourced redlinks and restore them as and when they are sourced. As an aside, I presume that the Nazi party had 10,000s of members at its height. How do these ones rate a mention and not the others? 15:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is supposed to be a list of notable Nazi members. People who were only very briefly or narrowly connected with them should really be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blofeld, its clearly not going to get deleted. The sooner you source it the sooner we can all go do something else. Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not confident of that. The best thing we can do in regards to red links is change them into de wiki links. Then gradually they can be transwikied and blue linked when the article is started. Every link must be sourced though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * hint I'm a deletionist and I don't think this needs deleting, Its a bit indiscriminate and needs a focus but what it needs is sourcing. I actually think as a list of notable nazis it has a valid existance. Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The German category has now 4.527 pages. In general notability would not stem directly from being a party member but from some more notable role or a later career. So I think beyond using this list to improve so far missing coverage the original it is not illegitimate to ask whether or not we should have it in list format in the long run. Actually we also have List of former Nazi Party members and List of Nazi Party leaders and officials. In brief, I'd rather see a case for more specific and informative lists such as e.g. List of Nazi physicians with the cat covering all party members. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this may be the source of much of the disagreement. This isn't a list of notable Nazis - it derives from a category that includes everybody with an article on de.wikipedia who happened to be an attested member of the Nazi Party. Inclusion says nothing about their degree of involvement; both en.wikipedia and de.wikipedia have categories and articles on prominent Party functionaries (and on the SS, and on the Ahnenerbe, and on the Concentration Camps, etc.) It's a more or less incidental attribute of a person; look at the size of it. If you want a list of prominent Party members (I believe our situation is we have one but it could do with improvement), this isn't it or a good tool to get to it. I agree with you, several people on this article need articles writing on en.wikipedia. That's one of the reasons I oppose replacing the redlinks with interwiki links - that has a deterrent effect on article creation. Nobody's fault except whoever made the colors almost indistinguishable, but there it is. But I disagree that the best solution is to rush rush rush to make either stubby articles or poor translations. There is no deadline. It will be better in every respect if multiple editors create articles for those people on the list who they have adequate sources for. The sources aren't going away and neither are the de.wikipedia articles if the people are notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace with en.wikipedia category. We currently have a very incomplete category "Nazis" - we could simply add all teh pages here for which en.wikipedia articles exist to that category, but I think it should be renamed Nazi Party members for accuracy; it currently includes at least one self-confessed admirer of Hitler who is at most a neo-Nazi. I think linking to the de.wikipedia articles is misleading at best. It's hard to see the difference in color and so people will click in the mistaken belief there is an English article - or not be inclined to create an English article because the slightly different blue does not give the clear indication that a redlink does that we don't have one. Also I do not see the urgency for creating articles for all these redlinks. Some of them are more notable to German speakers than to English speakers; that's one of the reasons we have different language Wikipedias. There are always going to be people and topics on de.wikipedia that aren't worth anyone's while to put on en.wikipedia, and vice versa. Otherwise in arguing that this list is vital to preserve including redlinks, aren't we thinking being a Nazi Party member is in itself a criterion of notability? I would oppose that POV. It wasn't that extraordinary a thing. And the de.wikipedia articles will always be there as starting points (I just used their rather poor article as my starting point for Helmut de Boor, for example.) When I encountered this list it had been created from the de.wikipedia category - if there was an antecedent de.wikipedia article, I'm not aware of it - and that seems to me to be the appropriate form of listing. It's a serious enough fact that any article stating someone was a Nazi Party member should have a reference for the statement under the verifiability policy, so that problem is properly solved at the article level. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its only temporary and you have mistakingly assumed that just because the de link is there they won't be referenced. WRONG. You are worng on both accounts. Firstly ALL names will be sourced externally regardless. Secondly ALL articles will become articles on english wikipedia gradually. I strongly disagree BTW in regards to German wikipedia, I'd say 99% of content on German wikipedia is perfectly suitable for english wikipedia. Rather the other way round, a lot of english wikipedia content isn't suitable for German wikipedia; they have much higher standards for encyclopedic content than us.♦  Dr. Blofeld  17:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So include them gradually.I think its a pretty good hint that if the German wikipedia didn't consider this list to be important enough to keep as such then we shouldn't either. I don't think that all, or even most, of those names on the list would pass .en.wp notability criteria - being a party member is not notable in itself. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it then that even the missing article are easily referenceable then and have an abundance of book hits in google books if they aren't notable.? Every name on this list is notable for whatever they did and sources are available to prove it.This was never a list on German wikipedia to my knowledge. It was a category. If there was a list on German wikipedia it was only deleted out of fright. So List of Power Rangers characters is encyclopedic yet a list of Nazis isn't. Mmm.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" isn't an argument.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And neither is your extreme ignorance that articles on other wikipedias which should immediately be put into english aren't notable. If your arguments had any validity we would not be missing a single notable article just because as it is missing obviously it isn't notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that you have stooped to personal attacks. You are alsoo twisting my argument - the point is that the article being there is the only proof we have of it being notable.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Just because there are red links doesn't mean they aren't notable. Not every notable German topic has an English one, and vice-versa. This list works hand-in-hand with the category per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * comment what is clear about the inclusion criteria? It could never be a list of all members of the nazi party. Currently the inclusion criteria seem to be "Members of the Nazi party who have an article in the German wikipedia and who will get an article here as soon as Blofeld gets around to it (if they are indeed notable)". It should be a list of members of the Nazi party that have an article in the English wikipedia, but it isn't.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not superman. New articles shouldn't be rushed (unless you have material e.g public domain material all ready to quickly post). I could create the remaining red links enmasse with little content and guaranteed that would be worse.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"A redlink listing a living person as a Nazi is a BLP violation unless a reliable source is present in the List article itself." Every single name in this list would have been completely sourced within three days if this hadn't been nominated. Also your BLP claim is redundant given that the vast majority are deceased people. A tiny proportion are living people. Each name in the list would have been completely sourced red or blue linked and any name in the list which a source could not be found for would have been removed plain and simple, no BLP issues or controversy if I could just spent some time on it without fear of it being swiftly deleted. The list has existed for over a year. Surely you could allow a few days for it to be entirely sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Blofeld's arguments. Referencing is ongoing and other time the redlinks will be created (I've done a few myself the last couple of days). It would be up to standard a lot quicker if others joining in the referencing as there only seems to be about three of us on it at the minute. Keresaspa (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Good list that will be built up over time, that provides valued encyclopedic knowledge, that otherwise would be locked up in a library somwhere. Sure it will take time to complete, but that is not a problem, its a solution. As regards the boundary of the article, the member of the Nazi Party, who were prominent is a finite number, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. All of them can be added, as all of them played their part in leading to the death of millions, so all of them are notable, all of them. scope_creep (talk) 19:28, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepThe list is muich improved, with unreferenced redlink entries removed, and apparently with persons who have articles for things other than incidental party membership (ie, not notable primarily for being Nazis) removed. *Delete unless all redlink names are removed and all memberships are reliably referenced. In general it is unacceptable to throw up hundreds of names in any list which says they are in some way reprehensible, without a reliable source. The German encyclopedia is not a reliable source, any more than the English Wikipedia. Are any of the persons still living? A redlink listing a living person as a Nazi is a BLP violation unless a reliable source is present in the List article itself. Use a category, and only for persons whose membership is reliable sourced.Some of the articles do not explicitly say the person was a Nazi, and the reader has to infer it from their military or governmental position. Do not just throw a mass of calumny into a list and expect others to source it, or resort to handwaving assertion that some foreign language Wikipedia is all the reference that is required. This would be just as true for a "List" of  terrorists, thieves, charlatans, murderers, traitors, incompetent professionals, people with a loathsome disease, etc. Claiming "Work in progress" does not trump WP:V.  There were likely hundreds or thousands of people in Nazi controlled countries in WW2 with the same name as many of the redlink party members, and without an article or reference, all those innocent people and their descendants are branded unjustly. This is as bad as the "No Fly" list. I knew someone who lived during those years who had the same name as one of the redlink Nazis, but who definite;y wasn't one.  Edison (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" promises do not trump WP:BLP and WP:V. No grace period. Remove the redlinks now or the article must be deleted. The redlinks must be removed immediately as a BLP violation, since innocent living people who were alive in the Nazi era doubtless also have many of those names. This is the very definition of a careless and haphazard smear. Edison (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a clearly notable and encyclopedia-worthy list. Now, the comments... (1) This stuff needs to be sourced. (2) I have less of a problem with redlinks as some people seem to. However, unless the redlinks are removed and a bluelink made one of the criteria for inclusion, this becomes an unmanageably large list topic. (3) The layout is dreadful. Each letter needs to be a subhead and the names under that name columnized. Having a vast list that must be scrolled is super annoying. Carrite (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion, I've reformatted it, much better I agree. Red links will be temporarily links to German wiki article until it can be started in English. We are gradually starting them but this will take time and should not be rushed. If this is kept all names will be referenced so it shouldn't be a problem. Eventually this should be a decent fully referenced list with every one of them having a decent article but wikipedia isn't complete yet...♦  Dr. Blofeld  21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong, very strong delete: We don't have articles for the Soviet Union,List of Communist Party of the Soviet Union members, we don't because it isn't notable. Just as this isn't notable, and this is an incomplete list, it can never be completed. It should be deleted! --TIAYN (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference in scale. And there are a finite number of people who were a member of the Nazi Party. And this article is supposed to only list those people who were active within the party, not just being affiliated with it. Especially for a party with such historical significance as Nazism a resource which lists notable members is perfectly encyclopedic.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still dealing with a couple of hundred thousand potential articles.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hundred thousand? Rubbish. Read my lips. This is a list of notable people who were active as members of the Nazi Party. Only a smallish percentage of the Nazi Party members that existed are notable enough to have an article or be listed it is not a list of any party member whoever existed for Christ's sake. Coverage in reliable publications will route out who or who not is notable. I've already removed a lot of names from the list who did not have a range of sources linking them to the Nazi Party. The ones which are are clear cut.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Guess I have to put together some separate pieces that I already said to some more comprehensive recommendation trying to clear up possible misunderstandings. looking first at the eventual outcome, I think wee will and should have articles on most articles from the original German cat. For sheer size and the fact that party member ship is one aspect regarding their role, I find a category here superior to a list of mere names, even if all correctly linked and cited which actually creates double effort. I just don't say delete because I can also imagine that the list develops or gets split up more systematically. More importantly, there need to be good articles and rushing one line stubs under pressure just because they are in the current list may not be the best way to start them. The German articles and the sources listed are possible starting points, though, not reference themselves of course, and I don't think anybody said that. Besides I merely wanted to suggest that if not only the German cat but also this list is to be used for creating articles, it should be moved out of article space to the incubator with temporary interwikilinks to allow for a swift conversion to a verified list (after languishing for 14 months).--Tikiwont (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I assume that this article is meant to include only notable members of the Nazi Party, because the party had over 8 million members by the end of World War II. However, anyone shown here as either a redlink, or an interwiki link, has not yet been established as notable within the English Wikipedia. Also, many of the list entries are unsourced. It is stated above that every single name in this list would have been completely sourced within three days if this hadn't been nominated. However, having an AfD should not delay the sourcing of this list significantly, so hopefully the list will be sourced anyway notwithstanding the AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that you guys will vote to keep this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't ned to convince you of that, but if its fully sourcd in three days I'd say that the likelihood of it being deleted decreases drastically.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists of millions of party members are therefore not appropriate content. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exaggeration. This is a list of notable party members. At best there is likely to only be a few thousand. The directory argument is a f*****g joke. We have a an unreferenced directory of minor planets on several hundred pages!!!! That is a directory!!!! This is a single page which lists notable members (soon to be all referenced) of a political party form A-Z, there is a small difference... Any which can't be sourced or have only light association will be removed from the list. Your argument is redundant and invalid as it violates absolutely none of those which are addressed at WP:NOTDIR; we have thousands of similar lists which are accepted on here. Smelly socks and List of Power Rangers episodes (authored or supported by Colonel Warden) encyclopedic, a list of prominent Nazi Party members not. Oh deary me... Stinky socks and a list of children's episodes is somehow perfectly encyclopedic yet a list of people who were part of a party which led to the elimination of millions of innocent people is somehow not.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF - and I think there is a differrence between a list of power rangers and a list with a large potential for BLP problems that have already caused one distressed family to contact the wikimedia foundation.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden is not voting to delete based on BLP paranoia. I will reference the entire list as soon as this list is no longer under threat so don't make up lame excuses about BLPs when this list would be sorted in a few days with references and those names which can't be supported removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good intentions "Promises! Promises!" does not trump WP:V and WP:BLP, and the existence of an article in some foreign language Wikipedia does not satisfy BLP objections to including the name in the English Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair when the article was first given the prod treatment on October 8 it was completely unreferenced and now less than a week later it has 310 references so there is hardly a need for the "Promises! Promises!" jibe. It will be fully referenced but it will not happen over night as it is a big job (especially seeing as many of the articles it links to are unreferenced) and the more people get involved the quicker it will happen. Keresaspa (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a few minutes work ( I would be happy to do it) to remove all the unreferenced names, including ones only referenced to the German Wikipedia (NOT a reliable source). Then, at his leisure, Blofeld or other editors can reference and restore the deleted names. We are not on deadline, and there is no justification to violate policies so that unsourced content can be in a list RIGHT NOW. They will still be there in the history. I think the result will be a useful article which does not violate WP:V or WP:BLP. Why the insistence on keeping unsourced or unreliably sourced names in such a horrible list? Edison (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are two keys to this list. One is size: it must not be a list of EVERY member of the Nazi Party, which would be unmanageably large, but rather a list of Nazi Party members for whom there are Wikipedia pages — which would make this an effective navigational tool. Second is sourcing: every single fucking name on this list MUST be sourced out, because listing a living person here improperly would be defamatory. I think there is a real effort being made to bring this list into compliance with these fundamental requirements. I would further urge that this page in its current form be userfied and the names brought into the list in mainspace only when sourced. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater, but the bathwater needs to be thrown out... Carrite (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree about only people with articles being in the list. Those are gradually being started and soon enough will all be blue linked. As long as every entire name on the list is sourced this should be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If a name is not notable enough to have an article, then it is clearly not notable enough to be in the list. Wikipedia is not a directory of nonnotable entities. Linking to German Wikipedia is clearly not adequate, because a Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:RS if you are in doubt on this point. Having an article about the person also lessens the chances of smearing an innocent person with the same name, like the "Terrorist No Fly List" or "Lists of Commies" during McCarthyism. Edison (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly your light bulb isn't working today. An experienced editor such as you should know that just because an article is missing doesn't mean that it isn't notable. My god you clearly know little about German wikipedia if you dismiss every article which we don't have in english to not be notable. This is highly concerning that I have editors surrounding me who think this way, and is probably why the gap between German and English wikipedia is so great. Pure ignorance.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the redlinks and German wikipedia links are removed before the end of the AfD Keep since this has been done. StAnselm (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the missing articles. And it took me a whole hour to do so, not two minutes. If a few of us can source those in the list fully now which do have articles then this list should be kept. I've moved the big missing list to my workspace where I and a few other editors can gradually start the articles and gradually build up the list over time enuring that additions are sourced and are notable. Edison has a point but a]I strongly disliked the way your undermined our work to add over 300 references in a day or two with your "Promises! Promises!" bullshit and that but for this ill-timed AFD we'd have had all entries sourced to reliable publications within a few days. b] The way you cruelly ignored our clear intentions to reference even missing links externally and that the link to German wikipedia were not intended to be a source. c] That you showed an astonishing ignorance that ALL missing articles are not notable and therefore tshould not be included in a list.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - were you talking to me? Either way, you are way out of line. StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Errm I was talking to Edison, can't you read english?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless you are clearly out of line with your personal attacks Blofeld, without regards to whom they are directed at. One thing is being frustrated, another is taking it out on others.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I closed this is keep after the nomination was withdrawn but have reopened following a request on my talk. Apparently this is not as clear cut as I had supposed. Spartaz Humbug! 05:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As can be seen, before this AfD was re-opened, I removed all unreferenced names (and might continue to do so every now and then). In its current form, I wouldn't be completely opposed to it, I just fail to see the sense in it -- in order to be someone or become notable in the Third Reich, no matter what one did or who one was, for all practical matters, one had to be a member of the Nazi Party. It was almost akin to being a citizen of the United States during the invasion of Iraq. I therefore find this not notable. A list of those who were not members of the Nazi Party would be much more manageable... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a list of notable people who did something significant as part of the Nazi Party/leaders or are strongly linked to them for whatever reason. Those plain ordinary citizens who were just a member will never have an article and therefore your concerns are unfounded. If you could have waited one god damn day I and the other editor workong on the list would have fully sourced it as promised as was in the process of doing so. You guys are a serious diappointment.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not curse at me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not curse at you personally, but your comparison of a select number of prominent Nazis to the entire American public is about as warped as it can get.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You now say that in one day you could have fully sourced all the names. But on October 12 on the article's talk page you said "This is a valid list, give it a few months and you'll see a lot more blue links." "A few months" to source "a lot" of the names, or "a day" to source all of them. Seems a wide margin of uncertainty as to how long the process would take. You say that all the names "did something significant as part of the Nazi party/leaders" and are not "plain ordinary citizens who were just a member." That sounds like a good principle for the ongoing maintenance of the article, since apparently party membership was a requirement for many professional positions in Germany at the time.  How many of the names have no ref indicating they were important in the operations of the party, rather than just being say a high school principal and a Nazi, or a journalist and a Nazi, or a college professor and a Nazi, as opposed to political or military leaders? This will be an ongoing editing question for the article. Would you advocate keeping all the names with such a conjunction of "has German article because their job as a scientist, journalist, educator conferred notability" and "Party member" as opposed to "person important within the party?" How many names in the total list (red and blue links) are notable only for something they did postwar, and were just random rank and file party members? The article is improved from its start, and I might favor keeping it if the basis for inclusion is made clearer.  Edison (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Point in case: should the pope be on this list? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're sorely mistaken. If you actually scout for sources you'll find that a lot of even notable figures like Eugen Herrigel, Kurt Hessenberg and Sepp Herberger who were party members are not notable Nazis so the end product is a refined list. The majority of Nazi Party members were not famous or notable. And even many who were were only loosely affiliated with the party like these two men are not included as they are not linked close enough in multiple publications.. If you look at sources you'll easily root out the prominent Nazis to those which just happened to be a member/didn't even really support them but were pressured to. The key to this list is sourcing as it spots those people who are discussed as Nazis in multiple publications and which will guide us to a refined list of notable Nazis rather than a list of every Nazi Party member ever. Maybe this list should be renamed so as people like Seb doesn't get their wires crossed. So what I'm saying Edison is that multiple sources linking members to the Nazis is a good criteria for inclusion. I'm currently referencing section H in the workspace and i'm removed half the names on the list like those above as they are just not notable members. So what we get at the end of it is a refined list which can be verified as being significant Nazi members in publications. I'd recommend moving it to a List of Nazis as there were many party members who were not true Nazis and were pressured to be a part of it due to their power at the time. This is supposed to be a list of true Nazis who did something significant as part of the party or were well documented believers. I've renamed it and added some intro notes to make this clear. For example [[Werner Heyde meets requirements, (because the party member did something of historic note as part of the party or/and are closely linked to the party in multiple reliable publications, Sepp Herberger did not so it therefore no longer listed. Another example, notable Nazi = Konstantin Hierl, non notable Nazi =Emanuel Hirsch. It is mostly obvious. Another idea would be to split the list by letter and turn it into table format with a photograph and notes on why that person was a notable Nazi. Would take ages but this is definately an encyclopedic topic if the list is compiled according to these guidelines and is done professionally. Meanwhile I will source as many of those which were removed from the list as I can manage by Seb/remove the lesser notable ones. OK?♦  Dr. Blofeld  10:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Very encyclopedic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I generally strongly oppose such lists, especially on on-going topics, but here we've got a historical, well-referenced article, and it would be very counterproducive to either trash so much work or to spent extra work on converting this article to a directory. Materialscientist (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Article is considerably improved from how it was at the start of this AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This list now has 600 sources and is fully sourced and still this AFD is open!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion states that "Articles listed are debated for at least seven days". StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia  subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N.  The relevant policy is NOT PAPER. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. I do not know what the deWP practice is on lists, but many of their policies are different from ours. That they would delete an individual article on a German figure is something I would take into serious consideration (though still not necessarily definitively), but not whether they turned a list into a category.   DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Now very nicely laid out and fully sourced. A real credit to Wikipedia! Carrite (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment all entries previously removed as unsourced have been restored with sources and those referenced to sources based on Wikipedia have been referenced to elsewhere. As such all sourcing problems are now over. Keresaspa (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2010 (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.