Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siegfried Marseille

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. There seem to be two issues in this discussion. The lack of sourcing and an assertion of notability from MILPEOPLE that general officers are usually notable. The overarching policy is the GNG which reuires multiple reliable sources for inclusion and there is no doubt that sources have not been provided as yet. This leaves the MILPEOPLE assertion. However this currently has the status of a proposed guideline which means it has not yet gained widespread acceptance that most users can accept to judge inclusion by. GNG however is a widely accepted standard that has clearly not been met. Therefore the policy based votes are the delete ones and that is the way the consensus falls. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Siegfried Marseille

Siegfried Marseille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject fails the generaral notability guidelines (WP:GNG). All of the sources the article references are about his son, and anything I found online were self-published sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I think his notability is borderline when it comes to WP:MILPEOPLE. The information available on Siegfried Marseille can easily be integrated (and already is to a large degree) into his son's article Hans-Joachim Marseille. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. General officers are generally considered notable per WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• DeleteWhile Necrothesp is right that Generals are often considered notable, the references in this instance are about his son and thus much of the article is unverifiable and even then I think notability here is borderline. Reichsfürst (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused about your assertions that the references are about his son, since they're clearly about him! His existence is verifiable. His rank is verifiable. That's enough for an article about a general. And stubs are perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER doesn't state that generals are automatically notable. The essay states that generally, if somebody is a general, they will have references to meet WP:GNG, but that's not necessarily always the case. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Since he was a general and since sources are almost certainly available (probably in that form deprecated by deletionists but perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia - paper), I fail to see what's wrong with leaving the article as a stub, which are also perfectly acceptable. I'm mystified by the worryingly increasing assertion (direct or otherwise), completely against Wikipedia guidelines, that stubs are not acceptable. His existence is perfectly adequately sourced. His notability, as a general officer, is obvious. There is absolutely no reason to delete this article other than a desire to delete for the sake of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep It would be stupid and also a shame to delete it , He was a high ranking officer, all we need is some more research and a clean up and it will be a 1st class article. What is their to gain from deleting it?? Goldblooded (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment the references quoted are clearly and specifically about the son, Hans-Joachim Marseille. The external links apply to Siegfried, but all appear to be from Fora or Blogs and hence are less than ideal sources. But a Wehrmacht GeneralMajor must have references in suitable sources, and I recommend a pause long enough for the author to locate them.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds good , but i'd appreciate it if i had a little help too... Goldblooded (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge the only two publications that mention Siegfried Marseille are

• Kurowski, Franz (2004). German Fighter Ace: Hans-Joachim Marseille: Star of Africa. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History. ISBN 0-88740-517-7.
• Wübbe, Walter (2001). Hauptmann Hans Joachim Marseille Ein Jagdfliegerschicksal in Daten, Bildern und Dokumenten. Schnellbach, Germany: Verlag Siegfried Bublies. ISBN 3-926584-78-5.

from these publications you can derive very little above and beyond what is mentioned in his sons article. He is not listed by Patzwall and Scherzer, which indicates that he didn't earn the German Cross (second highest German award if you exclude the Grand Cross). MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to correct myself, he is listed in "Hitler's commanders: officers of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, and the Waffen-SS" MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Doesnt matter, it clearly states in the wikipedia notability guide that if they had a General officer rank (which this chap did , he was Major General) so that alone is enough evidenece that this article is worthy enough, but anywho i highyly doubt you have scowled the whole of the Internet, and gone to your local histoy department, Which i will be doing very shortly and i will gather more research on him. Goldblooded (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to Hans-Joachim Marseille. If all reliable sources we know of cover him only in the context of his son, we can do the same.  Sandstein  06:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment No point , if you actually read the wikipedia terms , it cleary says that any officer of general officer rank (Brigadier-Field marshall) is notable , paticulary since he was in WW2. All it needs is some work. Goldblooded (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: As a general officer, he fits under criteria 3 of WP:MILPEOPLE, and as an Iron Cross winner, he qualifies under criteria 1 of WP:MILPEOPLE. I will note the delete arguments are basically trying to argue WP:RUBBISH, but WP:RUBBISH says, "the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." OCNative (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Side note: Siegfried Marseille received the 1914 renewed version of the Iron Cross first class! During WW1 the highest award was the Star of the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross (awarded only once to Hindenburg) followed by the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross awarded four more times. Probably next in line was the Pour le Mérite with Oak Leaves then the Pour le Mérite and other orders such as the House Order of Hohenzollern. The Iron Cross first class was far down the hierarchy of Prussian (note: it was not a German award in WW1) awards during WW1. Interestingly he never received the 1939 clasps of the Iron Cross during WW2. The Iron Cross does not qualify Marseille for Criteria 1 nor for Criteria 2 of WP:MILPEOPLE. Marseille may fall under Criteria 3, but that's about all. He never commanded a major unit such a regiment, battalion or division in combat. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete not sufficiently notable - never commanded a major unit in combat, nor did anything else to mark him out. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Obviously the high command, having promoted him to major-general, would beg to differ! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Let me make myself completely clear. I do not agree with our guideline MILPEOPLE as it regards flag and general officers. Bear in mind that it is a guideline and not policy, and a recent attempt to elevate it to policy failed over this specific criteria. We have currently a miniscule selection of the number of general or flag officers who have ever been commissioned in articles here on wikipedia, heavily biased towards British and American officers. In my view, only those who commanded in combat or who did something else especially notable deserve articles. We do not need articles about every USAF brigadier general who served as a project team leader on some canceled 1950s development project, while we are missing legions of brave and notable officers who simply did not come from either the US or UK. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm aware it is only a guideline and not a policy. It is however, in my opinion, a good guideline. I entirely agree with you that we are heavily biased towards the UK and US. However, in my opinion all general, flag and air officers of all countries deserve articles. It seems odd that you are making this point in support of a bid to delete an article on an officer who wasn't from the UK or US! Why do only those who have commanded in combat deserve articles? Are only generals who have commanded in combat worthwhile? Are those who have not done, but have still been considered worthy to be promoted to high rank, less important than the legions of minor celebrities with no real achievements who will never be deleted from Wikipedia because minor celebrities tend to have more fans than people who have actually done something worthwhile? (And yes, I'm also aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but my point is still valid!) -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Read the critera buddy, he clearly falls into the group. Goldblooded (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Merge to Hans-Joachim Marseille and soft redirected there. If sources can be found to prove verifiability and notability, this page could be recreated, but based on the sources presented (and I looked for a while myself), the page should be deleted or merged to son's page. I've been wrestling with William F. Halsey, Sr. for a while after a similar deletion process. I can find sources, but can't find many sources directly detailing. Puts an editor in a position bordering on original research. I persist because I suspect I'll find something soon. Regarding WP:SOLDIER, I'd like to add that during a recent military MOS discussion a user pointed out a major issue of disagreement between editors in that discussion: "Essay needs improvement, specifically that Flag and General officers criteria should be dropped." BusterD (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment That would be pretty stupid really its like merging Mussolini with Hitler ,even though they were both facist dicctators and both allies they are still completely differnt people. Same case scenario here. Im still working on this article anyway. Goldblooded (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be good to remember that even though you may disagree with some proposals, they're still valid proposals, and calling them "pretty stupid" isn't adhearing to WP:Etiquette. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dont try and twist my words and stop acting like a wounded soldier , I gave a reason why i thought it was stupid and ive seen many people call my proposals stupid (and worst) on here so why cant i use it back? Goldblooded (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, Goldblooded, that is not acceptable, IMO. It is certainly not good that others have used such language to describe your proposals, however, it is no excuse for you to do the same to someone else. Please remember that all users here are volunteers and are usually only trying to do what they think is right. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Well with all due respect, I am sick and tired of people putting me down on here so no more mr nice guy, And if its unacceptable then why are you here? This article has got nothing to do with you anyway and there blatantly wrong since if you actually read the notability pages then it says if they are notable enough to become an general officer rank ie this chap is a MajorGeneral and he also won the Iron Cross which to me is perfectly notable, And besides theres no need to stick your nose in other peoples affairs. Goldblooded (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge - per Sandstein and MisterBee. MB's statement that he is only mentioned in three works (two of which are in the context of his son) is particularly compelling. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Got any proof to back that up for definite? Goldblooded (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I have worked with MisterBee on a number of occasions, and am impressed by his knowledge of German literature in this period. I therefore take him at his word. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh right so basicailly your saying im stupid and dont know anything. Goldblooded (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is, I trust Misterbee when he says something on the coverage of a topic in German-language sources. All three sources he has found speak of Siegfried Marseille only in the context of his son. That is not enough to be considered notable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to his son's bio. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - According to WP:MILPEOPLE , receiving an iron cross is notable. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 23:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "According to WP:MILPEOPLE , receiving an iron cross is notable" (during Nazi German Third Reich, says MILPEOPLE). As mentioned above by User:MisterBee1966, during the First World War, the Iron Cross was a Prussian, not German award, and it was not the highest award available at the time. Adolf Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross 1st class in WWI, as were 145,000 other soldiers. Says the Wikipedia article: "The multitude of awards reduced the status and reputation of the decoration." BusterD (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to the son. Even the German sources I looked at see him as the father of a famous son. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep General officers are notable, there appear to be offline sources. Monty₈₄₅ 23:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MILPEOPLE, flag officers are notable. --causa sui (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To both of the editors above: MILPEOPLE does not say that all general officers are automatically notable. It says "an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources...an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they...held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer" (emphasis mine). Nowhere does it say that general officers are always notable, only that it is likely that they will have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. That does not appear to be the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I ran into this when I was writing an article about Lt. Gen. Barney M. Giles. His twin brother Benjamin Franklin Giles rose to the rank of major general, but there is precious little written solely about Ben; rather he is usually mentioned in passing in regard to his being the twin of Barney, making him fail general notability guidelines. This Papa Marseille article is much the same situation. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you say that and try and twist my words then nothing would be notable enough to satisfy you. Goldblooded (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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.