Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS-Oberabschnitt Süd


 * 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 redirect to Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel. There's clear consensus here that standalone articles aren't justified. There isn't clear consensus as to a target for a redirect: I have used the more popular option, but further discussion as to that point may be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

SS-Oberabschnitt Süd and similar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

These are all stubs substantially identical to the one deleted at Articles for deletion/SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel, and they share the same problems: they are sourced only to a unreliable source (Mark C. Yerger), and they are created by, who has been banned for fabricating sources (including apparently in the "Weichsel" article).  Sandstein  18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe merge? ... on the presumption that some or all of these things existed and might be corporately notable, possibly even treated in sources beyond the one source on which the articles all rely at present. Otherwise Delete. GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would possibly redirect all to Allgemeine-SS. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 19:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (edit conflict) -- If these really were divisional commands in the sense of an army division (between brigade and corps), they ought to be notable. SS used titles differing from the equivalent army ones, so that I regard this as credible, but I do not know.  In theri present state at the very least the articles need to be heavily tagged.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, they weren't "divisional commands in the sense of an army division", because the "general SS" wasn't a fighting force. These were apparently not much more than administrative areas, not independently operational units. And "ought to be notable" is neither here nor there; the question is: are they really? That question is decided by the usual criterion: individual in-depth coverage in multiple high-quality sources. (Before anybody cites WP:MILUNIT again: even that essay acknowledges that that's ultimately the only valid criterion and that no general rule about what types of units can normally be expected to be notable can actually provide a criterion of what is.) So far, we haven't really got anything. Even the single, decidedly low-quality source that is ostensibly cited (and in fact mis-cited) in all of these articles (Yerger), contains not more about most of them than routine listings of basic factoids, such as dates of formation and names of commanders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to suitable parent article (per above argument); nothing substantial to merge since everything in the current articles is unreliable and probably fake, given who wrote them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment According to this source (in Czech, reliable I'd say), SS-Oberabschnitt was a highly ranked "territorial unit". There is a lot of information at G-books and in other sources, at least from what I've seen in Czech. The best option is creating one parent stand alone article SS-Oberabschnitt and merging all the relevant info in it. Then redirect individual articles listed above in this AfD. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * SS-Oberabschnitt redirects to Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel, which would be an appropriate home for these topics (and a possible redirect target). But we can't merge any of the existing content because it is not verifiable, as explained above.  Sandstein   15:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What we have now is not perfect and I'm trying to offer better "encyclopedic solution". I belive there is enough material in reliable sources in multiple languages to create a decent article exclusively about the SS-Oberabschnitt, possibly mentioning also a list of its "branches". . Deleting just because someone was sloppy or cheated us is continuing sloppiness. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There may well be material in reliable sources about these topics, and if there is, a new SS-Oberabschnitt article could be written from scratch, or perhaps Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel should first be expanded with it. But the present content cannot be used for this purpose because it is by an unreliable editor and from an unreliable source.  Sandstein   14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel – Yeager's book is referenced there so the citation won't be lost – any new reliable sources can be added to the "Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel" article – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge: I knew Mark Yerger in real life. For what its worth, he was not a revisionist historian and, while some of his books on the Waffen-SS were rather slanted, the work he wrote on the Allgemeine-SS is essentially just an index of these commands with detailed lists of their leaders and operational years.  To dismiss his book out of hand seems not to be in order.  As for the article, best to just merge into a new article about the SS Senior Districts.  I should also add, the "Ostland" Allgemeine-SS unit mentioned in this list was connected to the Higher and SS Police Command in Latvia which murdered tens of thousands of Jews.  That alone might justify keeping that as a stand alone article or merging it to some appropriate Holocaust related article. -2601:152:4001:4460:3869:F967:294C:2B4B (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh look, there's OberRanks socking again. Range now blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 3 February 2021 (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.