Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sondergeräte


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sondergeräte

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There's no sound way to fix this stub. Its correct title would be "Sonder Gerät" or "Sondergerät" which translates (from German) to "special device" or "special equipment". The term was used in reference to various military prototypes, one of which is loosely described in the current one-liner. But there is no specific piece of equipment that goes by that name. Pichpich (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the nominator's assessment. Deb (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * comment- if this is in under the incorrect name, why not just rename it? Why bring it to afd? Umbralcorax (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read carefully, you'll note that the argument for deletion has nothing to do with the name. But I mention it because if anyone is interested in checking sources online, the current title will be close to useless. Pichpich (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read it, there's nothing there that tells me any of this. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad that's cleared up then... Pichpich (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there any reason why the whole series can't be described in the current article? If "Sondergerät" is just a nickname, we can rename the article to something a little less ambiguous while we are at it. Unless, of course, the various items with such a nickname have no real relation to eachother other than the nickname.  bahamut0013  words deeds 10:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's not a series. It's really similar to the terms "prototype" or "experimental": it's applied to a wide variety of auxiliary systems. I suppose the article could be about this fact but then it would just be a dictionary definition. I think it's pretty telling that the article "Sondergerät" does not exist in the German Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd say delete it.  bahamut0013  words deeds 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete if indeed the only thing these devices have in common is having been called "Sondergeräte", which could really mean any kind of device whatsoever. Otherwise, no vote. J I P  | Talk 07:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly re-name if someone can find the actual name for the weapon. Possibly userfy to let the creator do that?  David V Houston (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Important note. The original author of the article has not participated in the debate here but he left a note on Talk:Sondergeräte. For simplicity, I'm copy-pasting his comment:
 * This is a very important German weapon during WWII. It had apparently caused a number of Allied casualties, and was from what my understanding is one of the key component of all German night fighters during the late years of the war. Such an important piece of weaponry really needs to have a dedicated page. I hope that people with more information on the topic will contribute over time. The sources on this one as on few other German WWII secret weapons are scarce, usually few sentences in few books. I feel that more light should be shed on the secret weaponry on both sides of the conflict, especially the once that saw such a massive usage as the Sondergerät. (comment by )
 * Of course articles on secret German weapons are important. But the weapon that the article is trying to describe (and unfortunately the article is too vague to determine which weapon we're talking about) is not called the Sondergerät. Pichpich (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * this book (page 87; no comments on author's reliability) describes similar hardware without providing a definite name. Wikipedia should not invent names. If there were more verifiable content a redirect could do, but there's not much content anyway... I don't buy the argument on "sources on German weapons are scarce". In 1945 both US and USSR seized and examined every bit of technical research; at least the American part has been declassified. If it's real there must be more evidence. There's a caveat, however: German research wasn't all rocket science. They had genuine breakthroughs and they had outright quackery, and it should be no surprise that the Allies did not really care about the latter. East of Borschov (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to "SG500 Jägerfaust" or "Sondergerät 500 Jägerfaust". This source, referenced in the article, describes the weapon system rather well. The term Sondergerät, or even worse, its plural Sondergeräte is too general for this particular description (although not an invention). As I understand it, Sondergerät is a German military term for special additions mounted on standard military equipment. As such, this might be suitable for Wiktionary. --Pgallert (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain that this is incorrect. There is an article on the SG500: Jagdfaust. But the SG500 is an upward-firing anti-aircraft weapon whereas the one described by the article is supposed to be anti-tank and downward-firing. These are not the same, despite the apparent symmetry. Pichpich (talk) 12:36, 19 April 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.