Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients


 * 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. There's a lot of discussion here, but it boils down to near unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found this death watch list. The intro is covered at Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and all the recipients are covered in alphabetical lists like List_of_Knight%27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients_(A). Most of them seem to have at least a individual stub article. Given that all the men on the list are (or would be if there are indeed alive) in their 90's or 100+ it is essentially going to disappear as a list. If you look at the talk page and the article there is considerable doubt that the men listed are in fact living. The only other info here is who was the last to die under various filters, which goes against the title of the article. I suggest full out deletion as the info is all better presented elsewhere. If there is a desire to track missing or future death dates for the articles, this can be done on the award's talk page. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * delete I agree to the reasoning MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding notice - I have notified the WikiProjects for Military History, Military Decorations, and Germany of this pending discussion at the main talk pages for those projects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Query - Are 100% of the supposedly still-living recipients of the Knight's Cross also listed in the alphabetical lists for the decoration?  If this list is deleted, will any non-redundant content be lost?  This seems to be a core issue here.  If no non-redundant content would be lost, I expect that I will be able to support deletion for the reasons stated in your rationale -- barring any other issues.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By this reckoning you'll also have to delete every other List of last living people, including the List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans, and Surviving U.S. veterans of World War II.  Hannibalcaesar (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You stumbled upon this article and assumed that it's inaccurate, when in fact most of these men are indeed alive. Rudolf von Ribbentrop was just in Moscow presenting his memoirs. Hannibalcaesar (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This article is frequently updated. Same with the list of living Medal of Honor recipients, List of surviving veterans of World War II, List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War, etc. What evidence do you have that this list is inaccurate? I say keep it. Czolgolz (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a German WWII decoration. We are now 70 years from the end of that war.  I suppose having survived the way by 70 years might be regarded as notable, but I am dubious.  I am even more dubious of the WWII veterans article, which I suspect to be highly incomplete, in view of the size of British and Russian forces in WWII.  I rather doubt that two years ago, that one contained my father, who was then alive and joined the Bedfordshire Yeomanry in 1938, serving through the whole war.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The surviving WWII veterans article is for 'notable' veterans (people who went to to achieve things in politics, art, science, sports, etc), though the 'notable' tag has long been debated.Czolgolz (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Dirtlawyer1: Evidently all people that got this decoration are considered notable enough for an article because there are seperate pages for every letter of the alphabet with links to articles on the receiptiants. (The validity of them all being notable is not part of this debate). As far as I can tell the alphabetical lists are comprehensive, and based on the work of two main researchers. As for the Living List being inaccurate - the article itself says it is inaccuate, which makes sense given the age of the vets. To get off the living list requires some English speaking wikipedian to find a obit or other proof of death for a German person. Given many people's deaths are not publicized, variations in how names are used, language barrier, etc and that these men (if alive) are indeed very old, it follows the list of "Living" includes some not so living. Normally an encyclopia article deals with past events and once material is added it can stay. This is a list of future events with undefined dates - people's inevidable deaths. I have no opinion on the other "last of lists" at this time. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Legacypac. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

So should we also delete list of living Medal of Honor recipients? They'll all die too one day, they're all listed elsewhere, and many of them are old and forgotten. I hate to say it, but there's a lot of American-centrism coming through here. Czolgolz (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm Canadian, so there is no American centric thinking from me. There are several large differences. Prestige of the award and that one is obsolete vs the other continuing to be awarded.
 * There have been 3,512 Medals of Honor awarded since creation, with just less than half of them awarded for actions during the four years of the American Civil War.
 * During World War II 464 United States military personnel received the Medal of Honor, 266 of them posthumously." So that leave only 198 living men total to track after WWII.
 * In contrast "The total number of recipients of the Knight's Cross is 7,366" all during WWII. Evidently the Knights Cross is about 10 times less prestigious based on # of WWII awards, though it was the highest award available to all ranks in Nazi Germany.
 * The Medal of Honor continues to be awarded in current wars so there will be living recipients for a long time. It remains a very select award with very few given out. The Knights Cross last award was in 1945. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 09:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Then could I put in a personal request? I really enjoy this article, I've been editing it for years, I use it for research, and it's not actually hurting anything. Could, as a personal favor, it not be deleted? Please? What harm is it doing? Czolgolz (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see how it might be useful for keeping track of death dates to update on the alpha lists. We could Userfy it as subpage of your userpage like User:Czolgolz/List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients where you can use it happily.  Portions on who was the last holder in a category to die could go into Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross as a little table.  Does that help? Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that does not really help. The main list of all recipients does not mention who is still living. As I do not speak German, it would be impossible for me to continue this research on my own (I rely on other wikipedians to update this article). So far as I can find, this is the only English language resource that still lists these veterans. As you mentioned, this list is going to vanish in a couple of years anyway. Maybe few people rely on this article. Maybe I'm the only one. But I do use it, and isn't that the point of an encyclopedia? If a television show can have individual articles for each episode and each character, can't we live this article of minor historical significance? Wikipedia has millions of articles, please don't take this one away from me. It's Christmas. Czolgolz (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get to decide now, but I take your point it is likely the only list in English and there is lots of stuff that is WAY more trivial on Wikipedia then these men. How about shifting the "last of but now dead" info over to the main article to trim it down (that does not fit the title anyway). Also if we can maybe cross reference the German article (if there is one) and update the list, I'll support keeping the article for you. Legacypac (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I surely, surely appreciate that. I'll get on those changes.Czolgolz (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've consolidated the living lists into List_of_Knight%27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients where you can carry on. There should be no need for the standalone article now right? This title can be a redirect to that one. Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great work, thank you! Czolgolz


 * Note to Closer The substantive parts of the article have been merged to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients which already has all the same background info about the metals. This can be redirected now to that article when this AfD is closed. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this works. The information derived from this list in its current form is uncited. The target list is featured, fully cited, diluting its quality. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to Closer Legacypac's merger efforts have all been reverted.Czolgolz (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Query Why is the merge being deleted and who is doing it without discussion? A delete and merge seems the best solution, and the new article can be reinforced by further work, cite addition, etc. Irondome (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be perfectly happy with a merger, but MisterBee1966 says it negatively affects the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients article.Czolgolz (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Misterbee1966 above. Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete support rationale of Legacypac. Support Merge undertaken so article is kept in some form so user Czolgolz can continue his work. Irondome (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the 'Last of' info is a really good fit in the 'List of recepients' article. In fact the subjects of the two articles overlap, so a merger is a good idea. i negotiate a solution with an editor with an attachment and long term interest in keeping things up to date and that is no good? Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me explain my reasoning for my recent reverting, first, we don’t have consensus yet, second, the added information is uncited. In general, I think the information could be moved, but it requires more work than just moving of text and tables. As an example:

There is no reference, no indication what so ever for the statement that Rudorffer is "Highest scoring living fighter ace in the world. 222 victories including 78 Il2 Sturmovik in more than 1000 missions. He claimed 12 victories with the Me 262." Adding such verbiage to the target list, which is a featured list, needs to follow the WP:WIAFL criteria. May I suggest that the editors of this "List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients" first work on the quality of this content and then we revisit the decision whether we move or not. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm. The Rudorffer baseline article is a bit toe - curling. Full of peacock and unsourced claims. I think the individual articles of all KC holders should be checked. Until then I suggest we put a hold on the whole deletion request. The individual articles seriously need revisting if this is a typical example. Chased down Croydon High Street? Me mum never told me about that Irondome (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at the overall structure of the articles vs each other, not the validness of the content. All involved articles are just links to underlying articles on individual solders. Merging them will have no effect on the quality of the lists.Legacypac (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I have created a few featured and military history A-class articles, lesson learned, any factual bit of information requires fully referenced citations. The information on this list is lacking references and inline citations. You can't move this uncited content to the featured target list without negatively impacting the quality of the target list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe an interims solution could be to move the information to List of surviving veterans of World War II, which is also an uncited list. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. I believe those with existing wiki articles are already on that list.Czolgolz (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Misterbee's compromise, is a good solution for the time being. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Considering the fact that there are almost no sources proving that all this recipients are still alive (and that is what claims the name of the list), I support the deletion of this article. The Internet forums, which I use for keeping the article more or less up to date, can not be seen as reliable, of course. --Sersou (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the fact they are still living is not part of notability and as such they are already in the appropriate listing of holders. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2015 (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.