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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is largely surplus to requirements given the information already contained in Battle of Stalingrad and the associated Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad and Red Army order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad. EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article's content duplicates what is better covered in other articles, and doesn't serve a useful purpose. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You will note, looking at the article, that it does not just include commanders of units, as listed in the order of battle, but also senior staff officers. Therefore I disagree that it serves no useful purpose and duplicates other articles. Yes, it needs its scope clarified. Yes, it needs adding to. Yes, it probably needs renaming to List of senior officers at the Battle of Stalingrad or something similar. But it certainly has value. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If all those officers were notable in terms of the battle, they'd likely already be mentioned in the various orbats or the parent article itself. The article tells us nothing about the level of contribution they or their units made to the battle, and it's perhaps also worth noting that there's no reliable source for the list. The reference given is itself an unsourced list [1] and (only just noticed this, should have checked the external link earlier) bears an uncanny resemblance to the article. There may be a case for a category (Category:Present at the Battle of Stalingrad?) based on those names that have an article, but even that, I think, is very tenuous. EyeSerene^talk 14:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I completely disagree. Staff officers are rarely mentioned in orbats (which usually only mention the unit commanders). That doesn't make them non-notable. The article is a list, and as we all should know, lists are perfectly acceptable articles and are not superseded by categories. As for being a copyvio, it's a list and the webpage you refer to is a list. I'm not sure how a list can really be a copyvio, since they simply present information without any "creative" content. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I may have expressed myself unclearly. I didn't say the people listed were non-notable in themselves, but that there's no evidence that they are all notable in terms of what the list purports to link them to, which is the Battle of Stalingrad. I'm sure many of them had highly notable careers, but would a notable highlight of those careers have been taking charge of attaching the labels on to the supply boxes that were flown in to the city? A silly example I accept, but my earlier point is that we don't know what their contribution to the battle was. Even listing a divisional commander is meaningless if their division was actually 100 miles away and only a small portion of the division ever went near the battle. Regarding the possible copyvio, it's not really my area but I suspect that due to the similarity of items, order, spelling etc there may be more to the situation than you believe. EyeSerene^talk 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but all the list includes is name (in alphabetical order), rank and job title. None of that can possibly be copyrighted. It simply isn't possible. You can't copyright factual information. You can only copyright content you've created yourself. Neither can you copyright the format of a document when that document only includes information in purely tabular form. As to the involvement of individuals, if a division had units involved in the battle, then the divisional commander was involved as they were his men under his command. And the staff officers on that list are people such as senior administrative officers, medical officers and chaplains who would have been present at the battle. It is a common fallacy that staff officers do not actually take part in battles, but it is a fallacy nonetheless. We're talking about very senior officers (nobody on that list held a rank below colonel, with the exception of Vasili Zaitsev who shouldn't be on it in any case, and most of them were general officers, whom it is generally considered are entitled to articles on Wikipedia due to their rank alone) with very important functions, not mere functionaries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure you're right about the copyright stuff - as I said, it's not really my area and I tend to defer such things to Moonriddengirl :) WP:MILPEOPLE supports your point about a presumption of notability for General officers, but obviously it ultimately comes down to coverage in RSs (and certainly according to MILPEOPLE having a rank above colonel doesn't mean much unless there are other indications that a person might be notable). Again though, all that's to do with their notability as individuals. My question is "why are these people notable for having been at Stalingrad?" Any number of people were there; merely being in the vicinity of a notable event doesn't confer any inherited notability and certainly doesn't abrogate the need for sourcing. EyeSerene^talk 17:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not just the fact they were there. It's the fact they were senior officers at one of the most important, iconic battles in world history. Yes, maybe sourcing needs to be improved (although those who already have articles should have their involvement in the battle sourced there), but lack of sources is not generally a particularly good reason to delete an article, only to improve it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate list of major figures in one of the most famous battles in world history. Some of the comments above do not seem to apply to the actual article as written. Almost everyone in the list is individually notable as shown by existing Wikipedia articles, and as for the ones that are still redlinks, Not all Generals are notable, but those with major roles in battle generally are, and presence in this one is a major historical role indeed, so articles could be easily written about the others. (the few redlinked non-generals were commanders of units equivalent to those the generals present commanded, and so had similar notability. ) It seems entirely unreasonable to say that the people here merely happened to be there; this was a battle; they were the leaders. Obviously a list consisting of every officer present wouldn't be encyclopedic ; there were probably about 50,000 to 100,000. of whom few survived. I think that we could probably go down one more level in detail and still have a valid article. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons specified by Necrothesp and DGG. It is unclear that this is a redundant article. Flaviusvulso (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.