Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft

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

An unnecessary cross-categorisation. Most of the subjects included are redirects to another list for lack of individual notability. Per the outcome of the discussion: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners, certain recipients were deemed non notable and

WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff

. These articles have been redirected to alphabetical lists.

The article relies on a single, less than RS source. Obermaier (1989) (originally published in the 1960s) is a questionable source; see discussion at de.wiki on an attempted promotion of a list covering Luftwaffe fighter pilots to a Featured List: link. The nomination failed mostly because of the source, which was described as weak and dated. One of the comments was: The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. (...) According to WP:Q, the lack of scientific literature points to a lack of relevance.

Created under the POV title

"Panzer ace" in popular culture

). Such lists do not exist for the Allied "ground attack aces".

For the reasons above, the list lacks encyclopedic relevance and I recommend deleting it. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know whether it's amusing or evidence of tendentious editing that the nominator claims at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Handke, that "Being an "ace" may get you on a list, but if there are insufficient sources to write a balanced biography, such article should be deleted or redirected to a list", and here that "Most of the subjects included are redirects to another list for lack of individual notability", as part of his evidence for deleting this list. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of a discussion on whether a radar operator (Erich Handke) should be considered a flying ace. Since he participated in the pilot's victories, some have argued for it, but I don't think this idea gained traction. The AfD closed as delete for lack of notability.

Specific to this discussion, my contention is that

WP:LISTCRUFT, similar to comparative lists that appear on the Template:Footer Knight's Cross recipients. As I've pointed above, such lists of the Allied "ground attack aces" do not exist.K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for not addressing my point in the slightest.

talk) 19:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Please help me understand your point. As I mentioned, a list of flying aces, such as List of German World War II jet aces, is useful, since a flying ace is a recognised concept. But not for any other "aces". The article on "Submarine aces" has been likewise deleted / redirected; see AfD: Submarine ace. There are multiple reasons to delete this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the Handke AfD, you argued, in part, that flying aces are not prima facie notable, and that in the event that they are not individually notable, they belong in a list of aces. In this AfD, you are arguing, in part, that since the individuals on the list are not all independently notable, the list should be deleted. Clear now?

As to your other, substantive points:

Use of the word "ace" is not POV.
On subject of
WP:OTHERSTUFF
.
Criticism of Obermaier: what a random, anonymous editor on de.wiki thinks about a given source is irrelevant. Also,
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
, etc.
And the idea that since no one has used the term "ace" to describe very successful pilots of ground attack aircraft means we can't have a list of said pilots is, frankly, ridiculous in the purest sense of the word. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While I believe a list of ground-attack aircraft sorted by tank-kills (or other target metric) is notable if backed up by verifiable RS... The current article seems to be solely based on Obermaier (and also might be missing quite a few pilots) - which is, as per K.e.coffman, a questionable source - and in this case a single source. If the article were to be improved in sourcing, I would change my vote.Icewhiz (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed my rebuttal of that argument, perhaps because K.e.coffman tried to hide it before you commented here. But, in case you did not see it,
AfD is not for cleanup. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Basing the list on a single source still is problematic. If sourcing were to even marginally improved then I will change my opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. there are insufficient sources to show that even their notability even as a group is accepted DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- There is no obvious boundary at which to draw the line, so that inclusion is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. List article lacks clear selection criteria (define "highly-decorated"). Content could possibly be useful elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criteria are muddled beyond repair. How did aces get mixed into "highly-decorated" (no hyphen BTW)? There's no such thing as a ground-attack ace. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see some evidence for your last assertion - this book Coffman removed seems to attest to the concept, and the term "Stuka ace" seems to be well-attested as well, see for instance 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. As how aces got mixed up with "highly decorated", the nominator did that. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your references don't much support the notability of the concept of a "stuka ace". Rudel is called that, and in one instance Hubertus Hitschhold (although he's not on this list), but who else? What do you have to do to become one? That other deleted book is hardly enough to show that this is a widely recognized status. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what this list is about. It's certainly not a list of "combat aircraft aces". It seems to be simply a list of KC recipients among German ground attack aircraft personnel. Or is there another reason why gunners and radio operators are also included? It's been sorted by combat missions and for quite a many of these pilots, we don't know much about their "successes". "Tank claims" and "aerial claims" are not criteria which can fully account for the "successes" of ground attacks. The Ju 87, for example, became an antitank weapon only during the war. What about attacks on targets like bridges, fortifications, ships, troops, or cities? --Assayer (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 5 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.