Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz


 * 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. Merge considerations can proceed through normal discussion and editing. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a list- EDIT: WP policy is that every member of a list article must meet notability criteria, which I do not believe is satisfied here ImperviusXR (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Given the notorious nature of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp, an index of personnel who served there and engaged in such activities is of extreme academic interest. Wikipedia also does allow for such lists in cases where the listing directly refers to a famous or infamous event; see "List of crew members on board RMS Titanic" for one such example. -OberRanks (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Confused as well about the initial nomination. Manual of Style (lists) clearly states lists are permitted on Wikipedia as long as they conform to certain guidelines. -OberRanks (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While this should obviously not detract from the above comment, I feel I should point out that OberRanks is the author of the proposed article. ImperviusXR (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Stand-alone_lists, specifically the part where it says that every member of a list article should be in their own right notable enough to have their own article ImperviusXR (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that any person who served in the SS at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp is pretty notable. Even just being present in the camp as an SS member was grounds for a post war criminal investigation and prosecution.  Also, everyone on the page right now could very easily have their own Wikipedia article and many in fact already do. -OberRanks (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept the points you make but I am still going to recommend Delete ImperviusXR (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The applicable policy is under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, mainly: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. I would recommend we remove this entire section or archive it in a read-only box. -OberRanks (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, I dont think the nominator of the deletion vote is supposed to vote again in the body of the deletion vote - this is in a sense voting twice. You may want to consider modifying your above comment.  I've asked for a Point of Order review since I don't know the rules here. -OberRanks (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD nominations are discussions, not votes ImperviusXR (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, you nominated the article for deletion and then placed a second deletion comment within the discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is advised against I was not aware- could you show me where it says that this isn't reccomended in the wikipedia guidelines? ImperviusXR (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked for a Point of Order review on the main Deletion Talk Page to clarify the exact policy. -OberRanks (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator gives no valid reason for deletion. Lists are perfectly valid on Wikipedia as long as they are of valid subject matter. I think this would qualify, as many of the people on the list are notable and to omit the ones who aren't would provide an incomplete list, which would not improve Wikipedia in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My view was that this page is pretty much an exact reproduction of the source, and so it didn't seem as though bending the rules on notability would be warranted ImperviusXR (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, anyone in the SS at Auschwitz, by virtue of simply being there, is notable. To quote the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials: "Any member of the SS assigned to Auschwitz, in whatever capacity great or small, is either directly or indirectly guilty of mass murder and genocide.  There were no innocent SS men at Auschwitz, and they are all guilty of the same terrible crime" (Opening statement by Fritz Bauer, December 1963).  Even to the present day, if a former SS member who served at Auschwitz comes forward, they are immediately subjected to media interest, books, interviews, and investigation into their background. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Auschwitz


 * Delete First, WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability is not inherited. Auschwitz is notable, a guard battalion sentry who served at Auschwitz is not. Second, the ones that are notable aren't really notable for serving at Auschwitz, but for being part of the Nuremberg Trialsand the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials. However, they are already listed there and do not need to be listed again. Finally, and this is a personal opinion, I don't think this is the sort of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. It feels a bit to much like a directory. I would prefer the external link was simply provided as additional reading on the Auschwitz main page.--Djohns21 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it bears mentioning that I plan to merge this article with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp. This will cause the sources to triple and for more information than just the list to be included.  Also, the article is not simply a mirror of the external link.  I have actually done some research and reorganized the names into better flowing sections and sub-sections, using the initial website as only a basic guide. -OberRanks (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, first per WP:BURO, articles herein are not governed by statute. Here we have a detailed list that sets out the command structure and personnel for the infamous institution. It could not be covered in the length and detail given if merged into the main article, for example. It would help to expand the article with info. as to the roles of the groups listed in each section and given the fact the main author states above that he plans to merge it with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp is a good idea for general readers. Kierzek (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My position isn't automatically "delete", but I'm quite concerned about this list. Including a name on this list creates the potential for very serious harm to a living person.  If kept, the list would be one of our highest-risk areas of the encyclopaedia. If kept, it should be fully-protected to reduce the risk of vandalism, watchlisted by several experienced editors, and I want to see an inline citation to a reliable source for every single name that appears.  Please also reassure me that all these people are safely dead; I don't want to see a single living name on the list even if it leaves the list incomplete.— S Marshall  T/C 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of contentious articles, even lists. I'd like to think that even if someone read, say, George Bush being added to the article in the 30 seconds it took to revert they'd realize it's vandalism.  Being hard to maintain or in a POV battleground is no grounds for deletion, otherwise we'd have to delete many important articles, like Israel for example. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Fully protect but keep.— S Marshall  T/C 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A notable list. This needs to be perfectly sourced, however, and it is essentially unsourced as it sits. It appears, at cursory glance, like it might be a content rip of the web site cited as an external link. Where does that leave us? Carrite (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The perception of a copy from an external website should disappear after this gets merged with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp. Actually might not have red link articles to SS people without articles either, based on a review of some of the comments here. -OberRanks (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. Stop this waste of time. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a good example of a notable, well-defined list; having historical and encyclopedic value. We should keep the list complete, even if some of the individuals aren't independently notable.  Them From  Space  12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep; I would normally say a list like this should be merged and redirected as an embedded list in the parent article. However, given the article's size it should be kept separate as a sub-article. That being said; due to WP:NLIST and WP:NOTINHERITED I am unsure as to whether all subjects within the list deserve a wikilink per WP:REDLINK. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I felt that given that the content is from one source that would be linkable as a reference in the main article, there was no need to have a second one. It would still be the same number of clicks away from the Auschwitz article. I accept however that the content may have been edited into a more helpful format. ImperviusXR (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia doesn't need endless lists copied and pasted from other websites, particularly when the people named are not noteworthy --Fishistheice (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pretty much established at this point that the article was not a "Cut and paste"" from another website and there are active plans to merge it with another article containing more sources.  To be blunt, I'm also suspicious of an inactive account for nearly two years which is reactivated and the first edit it makes is to post a delete recommendation in a losing argument where most of the votes were to Keep.  That strikes strongly of WP:MEAT, if not WP:SOCK.  Apologies if I'm out of line.  I just find that very strange. -OberRanks (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Followup, reporting the above user here. -OberRanks (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; Given the notability of the main article and the current size of the article, as commented above, I would strongly consider it should be kept separate as a sub-article. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Enough of the officers have articles to justify the retention of the list. In so far as they do not and may be NN, the appropriate course would probably be to delink them.  I consider that merging the list to the main article on the camp would unbalance it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (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.