Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Pitsch

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Pitsch

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

Fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; fails WP:SOLDIER as the Knight's Cross award is questionable. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. This article is one of roughly 500 similar stub articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in the span of about three months in late 2008 to early 2009.

The subject is mentioned in a book by Reynolds; however, I would consider this to be a WP:QS source, as his work has been described by historian Robert Citino as of of those that "flirt with the admiration" for the Waffen-SS, with some "[going] farther than that". Please see Waffen-SS in popular culture for more details.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). This article does not meet the low bar of WP:Soldier for WWII Germany, as the award is questionable, however, PROD has been declined on the grounds that this needs AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- medal is disputed, fails to meet general notability. Indy beetle (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list as an unproven awardee.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria. Maybe someday we'll get a REFUND. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have had considerable doubt as to whether this award confers notability. In this case, even whether the award was made is somewhat dubious. Perhaps this is a case of a man being recommended, but that being overtaken by the end of the war. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 4 September 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.