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. I'm seeing no consensus to delete this article. There are suggestions to redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), so the rest of the discussion would be better continued on the article's talk page. Joyous! | Talk 00:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egon Aghta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This historical figure does not seem to be notable as I could not find much WP:RS online. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect name to appropriate list of Knights Cross winners; unless someone can expand the article with detail. Kierzek (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- Another NN German soldier. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Recipients of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves are generally considered to be notable, although recipients of the Knight's Cross alone are not. As effectively indicating two Knight's Crosses it would appear to pass WP:SOLDIER. Even if one does not accept (as I do not) that the Knight's Cross was prestigious enough to rate as a first-level decoration, it must surely rate as a second-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SOLDIER. Reference proves qualifying award. The nominator should have checked this out per WP:BEFORE. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A); insufficient sources for a stand-alone article: link; see WP:WHYN. WP:SOLDIER itself has been recently modified, and the awarding of the KC (even in multiple grades) is no longer a sufficient claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does, however, still say "were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times". If two Navy Crosses are sufficient for notability then I really don't think we can legitimately argue that two Knight's Crosses are not. That would really be Americanocentric. We have generally decided that one Knight's Cross is not sufficient (something I have long argued), but two (which is essentially what the oak leaves indicate)? I think that would be pushing it. We would be going from one extreme (assuming all recipients of the KC are notable) to the other (assuming that almost none of them are). That does seem to be rather biasing WP:SOLDIER in favour of countries like the Commonwealth countries and the USA that have a clearly defined first-, second- and third-level decoration system, something which many other countries do not. Remember that Nazi Germany also had the Iron Cross 2nd and 1st Class below the Knight's Cross; it was not the lowest award by a long way, so it should certainly be regarded as second-level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not an SNG; it's subordinated to WP:GNG & requires sufficient reliable sources to be able to build an NPOV article. No such sources have been presented at this AfD yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: if there isn't enough information to write a full biography, a redirect to the list of recipients is probably the best solution, in my opinion. If further sources and information come to light, it would then be a relatively simple matter to remove the redirect and expand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2016 (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.