Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Broch

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 not convinced that leaving this up for another week will lead to any discernible consensus. Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Broch

Hugo Broch (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)

From the talk page, by K.e.coffman: "No de.wiki article. The subject did not hold a significant command. Successful completion of missions is not part of SOLDIER. Please also see a note at MilHist Talk Archives for background behind the redirect. In summary, per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists." Aggressively restored by a user with 20 edits. Speedy declined. Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong Keep - Not due to Knight's Cross (which is debatable in significance - not going there), but due to his status as a Flying ace with 81 claimed kills. As you can see in List of World War II flying aces - flyers with a much smaller kill count have articles - with the notability being their kill count and nothing else. Being an aerial ace (with a significant count for a particular conflict - 5 would be borderline for WWII, but would confer significance in any other conflict - 81 is clearly significant for WWII - only German pilots (+1 Finnish) acheived this high a count (to be fair the Luftwaffe flew pilots until they died - not retiring them to command or training)). Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Several google-books hits (In addition to the ones in the article itself) - [1]. To put 81 kills in perspective - a Aviation regiment (Soviet Union) had around 60 fighters - this is a significant achievement in terms of material and personnel damage (destroying a regiment), meeting SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign".Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect -- Successful completion of missions (X enemy planes shot down, Y "tank kills" etc) is not part of
    WP:SOLDIER
    . Germany had over 100 pilots who claimed more than 100 aircraft shot down, so the achievement of the subject of the article is not remarkable. Overall, German pilots of WWII claimed 70,000 Allied aircraft destroyed. The claim numbers for individual pilots are not significant in the grand scheme of things, as the Allies were producing aircraft and training new pilots at a much higher rate than the Germans could destroy them.
In any case, if the claim is that being an ace = "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign", then it should be easy to demonstrate the coverage of this event. What I see are passing mentions.
Separately, the absence of a de.wiki article is strongly suggestive of a lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete german fighter pilots with less than 100 kills, you will have to delete every allied pilot, who did not receive top award honors, as well as every ace from every other war... and there are several. I actually agree with the deletion of many knight cross reciepents, but you took too broad an axe here disregarding notability on other grounds while incidentally leaving in less significant soldiers, including aces, which didn't recieve the knight cross. There are several books and articles on fighter acss leading to sigcov, and the military impact here is beyond just "Doing a job". An ace who shot down more than 80 aircraft took out more than a regiment, single handedly. In modern dollar terms, on the current 100 miliion dollar fighter jets, this is 8 billion dollars in just material damage, disregarding the effect in the air war.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far, these have been arguments along the lines of
significant coverage in reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So far the argument for delete has been based on him being on a knight's cross list - to which you took an axe (and I agree in part to your action - but you've cut off some articles that are notable besides the knight cross!). He is on Japanese and Portoguese wikis. The article is supported by a non-short biblography - not all of which I have available, and I assume you don't as well. A quick google-books search shows some hits, e.g. - [2] (and his autographs do sell on ebay - so someone is paying), [3], [4], [5] - and several others. As you should know - not everything is searchable online easily - some of biblo in the article is not easy to acquire. Beyond SIGCOV - which may exist (as per google-hits, and amount of google images, memorabilia sold with his name), he simply meets SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". He is on - [6] - with a high count, and has destroyed a regiment equivalent number of aircraft. A soldier that is responsible for the destruction of a regiment of opposition forces clearly meets SOLDIER(4).Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of these offer significant coverage, and the argument that there's memorabilia sold with his name is not relevant to the discussion. My contention is that significant RS coverage on the subject does not exists. The matter of Knight's Cross winners and Luftwaffe fighter pilots is a matter of some discussion on de.wiki, where the community has arrived at consensus that indeed such coverage does not exist.
To quite from the Featured List nomination discussion re a list of Luftwaffe fighter pilots: "The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. Serious military historians are concerned with other things." (Dass keine wissenschaftliche Literatur verwendet wurde, ist dem Autor nicht vorzuwerfen, denn es gibt keine...) Etc. The nomination was quick failed:link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting the German, as the discussion you are quoting from is for an expansion of the list of aircraft personnel to all knight-cross recipients - to 568 entries (which I agree would be excessive). Hugo Broch is on the un-expanded existing lists - [[7]], and is one of the very few without a full entry - which might be an oversight. Regarding significant contributions of individual soldiers - I agree indeed that this isn't usually "serious" military history. However - it is popular information that interests the general public - as is evedinced by books such as - [8] [9] [10]. 81 aircraft kills - definitely meets SOLDIER(4). Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are passing mentions (the first one being a line on a list), and are insufficient to build an NPOV biography of the subject. What we have here is
WP:BIO1E situation -- only notable for the award of the Knight's Cross, and the community does not consider the latter to be a sufficient presumption of notability. The argument that an "ace" status makes someone notable by default in not included in the MilHist project's own guidance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't gone through the entire bibol in the article - and I assume you haven't either - as it isn't online AFAIK. Regarding "ace" criteria - it doesn't need to be set out explicitly - as SOLDIER(4) already covers it. 81 aircraft kills - should be a no-brainer for notability. As you can see in listings here -
Eugene A. Valencia, Jr., Arthur Ray Hawkins - who are there solely because of their ace status (on around 15 kills).Icewhiz (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Even less significant WWII aces: Bolesław Własnowolski, Gordon Arthur Stanley, Robert W. Aschenbrener, Richard E. Turner, Norman C. Skogstad.Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Obvious retort. But in this case we are talking about fliers from the same war and notability. You even left in less notable German ww2 who did not receice the knights cross, as you chose to delete based on knight cross reception. While a knight cross might not make a soldiee notable by itself.... It does not confee non notability if notable on other grounds... In this case Soldier4 is met.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Keeping in mind K.e.Coffman's MO (to delete German personnel), the deletion of this article serves no purpose. In fact, a good article can be made out of it as good sources exist. Further, the assertions made about the alleged inferiority to Soviet airmen has been hugely exaggerated. Training deficiencies were most pronounced in 1941, and 1942, but thereafter the gap rapidly closes. Also, the Soviets were never grossly inferior technically. Most of the war-winning generation of aircraft were entering service in June 1941. K.e.Coffman's claims that a NPOV article is not possible is entirely fictitious. Dapi89 (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have kept many articles on pilots with the bare minimum (five) of kills required to be an ace. If we delete an article on a pilot with 81 then we need to reassess all articles on aces. This requires an RfC, not just an AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair - the delete (redirect) here did follow an RfC - on knight cross recipients - [11]. K.e.coffman then took out a very big axe (I suspect based on set criteria, including German wiki inclusion), and redirected a very large number of Knight Cross recipients - largely correctly.... However - when wielding a huge axe, you sometimes (though some were spared) chop away people notable for other reasons - in this case SOLDIER(4) due to kill counts as ace. While getting a knight's cross might not make a soldier notable in and of itself - receiving one (and not being on german wiki, and not reaching high enough rank / effective rcommand) - does not make a soldier un-notable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trekphiler: would you be able to offer any sources to sustain a stand alone article, vs being on a list? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then this is solely a
    WP:ILIKEIT argument, and should be discounted by the closer. The arguments "No, I don't have any sources" generally don't fly at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. The bibliography features four titles on KC recipients (mainly the usual directories), one article from a popular special interest magazine, and one title Luftwaffe Fighter Aces. The latter features Broch in its appendices: "Hugo Broch* JG 54. TV 81 (all EF). CD EF Jan. 43. TS 324. SR 4.00". If this isn't about the KC, but about "aces", then the coverage is meagre, to say the least. It does not make sense to compare "counts" from different conflicts and different air forces. That's simply ahistorical. I also see no reason why fighter pilots should be entitled to a bonus of notability compared to other soldiers. It seems as if the notion of the lonely chivalrous fighter, i.e. the very image of the "ace", still dominates the imagination, but imagination does not supersede
    WP:GNG. --Assayer (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
comment: first of all fighter pilots were not lonely, they fought in teams. Secondly, your claim that it is Based on the lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources, is false and dishonest. Dapi89 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the literature on the "ace" does not fail to mention, the image of the lone "ace" survived long after air tactics had changed air combat into something that Eddie Rickenbacker has called "scientific murder". Why don't you just proceed to provide proof of that coverage in question instead of engaging into personal attacks?--Assayer (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who says/said the ace was a lone hunter anyway? And why should we subscribe to this view? Do we subscribe to this view? I dont think we do. Who cares what Rickenbacker says or doesnt say about air combat? War isnt murder, and all war is scientific. You're just adding a series of pointless posts. Attack? Picking appart your argument is not an attack. I will get started on this soon, as your apparent deletion attempt has been rejected. Dapi89 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I paraphrased The Oxford Companion to Military History (2001; 2004). "The men who flew the fighters became popular figures of mythic proportions, partly because of the sheer, romantic improbability of flight, but also because they seemed to have restored a element of single combat to the anonymous slaughter of modern war. Victory in the air was thought to be a matter of personal skill, heroism, and the luck of the brave - an image that survived long after air tactics had begun to acquire the characteristics of deadly routine." I also found the Rickenbacker quote there. I could provide further quotes from other historians, but I am sure that you rather subscribe to the myth than to the views of military historiography.--Assayer (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a meaningless response to what it a very straight forward issue. They were called aces if they claimed to have destroyed five or more in aerial combat. Aces are notable. It doesn't really matter what historians say about the image of the ace or aerial combat because that isn't relevant. And this source wasn't written by aviation specialist anyway. I don't think you are familiar enough with academic literature on air power to lecture me. Resorting to to the Oxford Companion for support says as much. Out of interest, have you studied air power theory, history and practice at an academic level? Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar enough with the academic literature on the history of air power to know that Peter Fritzsche's account of popular aviation culture in Germany is a respected study in the cultural history of air power. Interestingly enough you basically concede that "aces" were the creation of a specific stage of air war, mainly the first two years of WW I. Afterwards solo sorties were considered to be much too dangerous and group missions were carried out. Thus "airmen" were as much the products of industrial warfare as the masses of infantrymen on the ground. After WW I "aces" did have no strategic importance for air war. To borrow a phrase by Richard Overy, they were "schoolboy heroes". So it's up to you to demonstrate that Broch was so popular an "ace" that his explorations have been significantly covered by reliable secondary sources.--Assayer (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep L3X1 (distant write) 12:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to have achieved 81 aerial victories in combat is significant; with that said, it is concerning that the article is sorely lacking so much RS cited detail; certainly there should be information which can be found and used for coverage as to this pilot in order to provide readers with an article of substance. The lack of a German Wikipedia article is not the best indicator, as English Wikipedia has many more articles than any other one on multiple subjects. I don't write on Luftwaffe pilots (or tank commanders, for that matter), but it seems there should be coverage to be found for someone with 81 air victories'. Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of World War II aces from Germany as lacking independent and non-inherited notability. Number of kills or ace status alone don't guarantee notability, and the only sources about this subject are mere confirmation of existence and victory number/Knight's Cross. No significant independent reliable sources in the article or above significantly about Broch instead of about large groups of contemporaries. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although
    WP:NEXIST could normally be presumed for someone with 81 air victories, the existence of (significant) coverage in reliable sources, beyond those already cited in the article, has been called into question. Examples of reliable sources beyond those already cited, with significant coverage of Broch, are needed in order to back up the Keep argument. (Icewhiz's Google Books search has brought up sources that only have passing mentions of Hugo Broch and his killcount, or unrelated sources) Alcherin (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note - added a RS book[1] on his autograph to the article - he's a prolific signer (as evidenced by primary sources (not in article) - [12] [[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] - and there are hundreds more (as he appeared in very many signing events + signed per mail order).Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Collecting Historical Autographs: What to Buy, What to Pay, and How to Spot Fakes, by Ron Keurajian, ISBN 978-1476664156 pages 37,112-113
I'm failing to see prolific autograph signing as a criteria for notability. For example, we include Pete Rose on the basis of his accomplishments in his field and enormous coverage in secondary sources, not because he is the most prolific baseball autograph signer (a fact that only gains mention in passing connection to his criminal conviction). I suppose that having large numbers of autographs in circulation could be construed as an argument that the signer is popular but
popularity is not notability so I don't think you are making that argument. Given the sources you found, it might be worth a mention on the Autograph page or somewhere related. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Obviously this is marginally notable - wouldn't confer notability by itself - but is an indication that some people see some notability (as they are willing to pay for the autograph) - I added half a line (11 words) mentioning this to the article - which is marginal. But the book reference is an additional RS covering the subject (a few paragraphs there).Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Pardon me, but I consider the statement he's a prolific signer, especially (as evidenced by primary sources) to be one of the more "credulity-stretching" arguments at AfD. I believe that such arguments should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have one's
    collectible - shows that some people (collectors) view the subject as notable beyond a random scribble by some guy on the street. This isn't a strong claim - it is a weak claim - but it does provide evidence that he's considered notable by some other people.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes; more than one of them (three) mentioned it. Or [18]. Many thanks! —
semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Of the three: In the first he is mentioned on just one page, in the second he is only present on two lists, and in the third it's really just a passing mention. This other book by Scutts is already cited on the article, with (apparently) only enough coverage to support one sentence. By no means is this
exist with sigcov on Broch is up for debate. Alcherin (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hugo_Broch&oldid=1142206190"