Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walther-Peer Fellgiebel


 * 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. The "keep" opinions don't come close to addressing the sourcing concerns.  Sandstein  18:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Walther-Peer Fellgiebel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability standard under WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. Also appears to contain a significant amount of WP:OR. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe something to consider, see the German Wikipedia article on Fellgiebel, his biography is listed in Habel, Walter (1990) Wer ist wer? The German version of Who's Who (UK). 29th Edition. Schmidt-Römhild, Lübeck, ISBN 3-7950-2010-7. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep Redirect to Zündwaren monopoly (see my later comment) While he clearly doesn't meet criteria #1–7 of WP:SOLDIER, I think we need to consider that his book was, for quite a period of time, considered a reference on Knight's Cross recipients, and he might meet criteria #8 on that basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do remember that WP:SOLDIER is only an essay on notability and does not get around the requirements in WP:BIO for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am entirely familiar with the status of it as a SNG, but it has been proven over and over again to be a good indication of notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 12:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Fellgiebel was the last member of the board of directors of the Zündwaren monopoly before it ended in 1983, I added this info with references. Note, this info had been removed in a previous edit. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've requested a couple of sources via WP:RSX, one is the Wer ist wer? entry, and the other is a economic Who's Who? for Germany that looks like it talks about former Wehrmacht officers that became captains of industry post-war. I suggest this isn't closed until the busy elves at RSX have had a chance to see if they can access them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with Wer ist wer?, but I doubt it's any help in establishing notability. If it is anything like Who's Who (UK), it will include any local councilor, lawyer, association president, and businessman active for the post-war period. It may well also allow people to buy inclusion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where’s your evidence for that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have none, especially since I do not speak German. But one reference in a professional directory will never equal "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" for the purposes of WP:BIO. Even if it is otherwise reliable as a source, an entry of a couple of lines is not "significant coverage" and it is also probably WP:PRIMARY anyway. Plus the "multiple sources" bit is still a problem! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are making a lot of assumptions without seeing what the sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly is that relevant? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would benefit from some further input

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment am not having much joy at RSX, if nothing turns up in a week or so, I think this should be closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * keep (as creator of the article) the article is currently referenced with six independant sources, six other language Wikipedias have an article on Fellgiebel, authority control reveals six entries (BNF: cb14547441s (data) GND: 1033633771 ISNI: 0000 0000 2779 3929 LCCN: n87940223 VIAF: 77001355 WorldCat Identities: lccn-n87940223), Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "currently referenced with six independant sources" is rather disingenous. For example, this article merely references a press release made by WPF on behalf of his match business while this article is clearly about Erich Fellgiebel (see WP:NOTINHERITED) and makes as much reference to WPF as it does to half-a-dozen of siblings and cousins. This article literally mentions his name (and no more!) as one of Erich's children. I cannot see how this can possibly constitute "significant coverage" in published sources.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

KEEP. If only for the controversy surrounding the books he has produced on Nazi era decorations. Dapi89 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't meet GNG, BASIC or NSOLDIER. This leaves NAUTHOR #1, #3.
 * I don't see that he meets #1 ''"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." His field would be military history, and I don't believe he is an important person in this field or is widely cited by other military historians. He himself noted how his work was in ways lacking. He might be in a very niche community, but thats the extent of it. He doesn't meet this point.
 * #3 ''"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ... such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work". Again this is a niche community, not something that is well known or significant beyond. In addition, there work is not the primary subject of an independent and notable work. He doesn't meet this point
 * If there was an article about the book, it would have a redirect/merge target, but there isn't and I don't know if the book would have RS that would make it meet WP:NBOOK. Again he himself noted how his work was in ways lacking.  // Timothy ::  talk  21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)   // Timothy ::  talk  21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think any basis of notability isn't going to be based on NAUTHOR, but GNG on the basis of being in charge of the Zündwaren monopoly, as there is no SNG for industrialists. Given RX hasn't been able to produce the two sources I was after, I think this should be redirected to Zündwaren monopoly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Industrialist"? Do we even know how many members of the board of directors there were at any one point? Could have been literally dozens. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources say he was the head of the board (unter der Leitung von Fellgiebel) Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nom. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Living through extraordinary times or working for a business with a quirky setup do not make anyone notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2020 (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.