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. Deryck C. 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Wendorff

[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines (low-ranking soldier), nor WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has been tagged "Unreferenced" since Dec 2015. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find a few mentions of him (example), but none of them mentioned the Knight's Cross. Agte does mention the Knight's Cross, but we can safely discard this because we have several prominent MILHIST editors and other authors calling Agte's work "pov driven, not objective and carries undue weight." "Agte is referred to as a "Neo-nazi" in Rethinking the Space for Religion by Catharina Raudvere and al. It should also be noted that Agte was closely associated with Waffen-SS revisionist organisation HIAG. Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organization..." You get the idea. Since Agte is certainly not a reliable source, the article fails WP:SOLDIER #1. As he was just a platoon leader, he fails #6, as well as pretty much all of the rest and WP:GNG. GAB^gab 20:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found a few links at Books but there's still not the needed solidity for sufficient improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: At another editor's request on my Talk page, I'm providing a Nov 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. The article's material was cited to:
- achtungpanzer.eu
- best.panzer.aces
- unknown website (dead link),

which are non-RS and probably extremely dubious.

Also pinging GeneralizationsAreBad and SwisterTwister to see if they would like to revisit their comments. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe that sufficient reliable source evidence exists to sustain a page on him. I find myself agreeing with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give folks an opportunity to review the potential sources recently identified J04n(talk page) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:46, 13 June 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.