Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthäus Hetzenauer


 * 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   speedy keep. Boldly speedy keeping this article per WP:KEEP (non-admin closure) '''-- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers, ] Ri l ey   ''' 20:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Matthäus Hetzenauer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced, kills are unconfirmed, and uncited. TucsonDavid U . S . A . 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot see the issue. There are sources, and his 345 killings are confirmed:

--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter Brookesmith: Sniper-Training, Techniques and Weapons, London 2000, ISBN 3-613-02247-8. (Page 43)
 * Peter R. Senich: The German Sniper – 1914-1945. Boulder, London and Melbourne 1982, ISBN 0-87364-223-6 (Page 113)
 * Adrian Gilbert: Sniper – The World of Combat Sniping. London 1994, ISBN 0-283-06165-0. (Page 88)
 * Strong Keep [edit conflict] I found those three sources as well in less than two minutes.  Which would be more appropriate here, adding those citations or just deleting the work of other editors, which probably took at least 30 minutes in total to build this article?  Deletion is appropriate for articles where reliable sources ARE NOT AVAILABLE not when they are available but the nominator for deletion can't be bothered to add them, or even just add "citation needed."--Brian Dell (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep He won the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, Germany's highest award for battlefield bravery during World War II. Therefore, he meets WP:SOLDIER Item #1. It was easy to find sources confirming his kill count, such as this and this and this. He is mentioned in several other English language books about World War II snipers, though the text of those books are not available online. Clearly notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination doesn't stand on anything. No reason to delete, meets notability and sourcing, all that stuff said above. gwickwire  talk edits 20:41, 3 February 2013 (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.