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 redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (W). There is a consensus here that this individual does not have enough significant coverage at the moment to pass the general notability guideline. No one has objected to the suggestion of a redirect though, so I will do that per WP:CHEAP. Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Weiss (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)

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 since 2013. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I was unable to verify the Knight's Cross, and he fails WP:GNG, regardless. GAB^gab 21:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment: Following the suggestion on my Talk page, I'm providing a Oct 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. The article's material was not cited to any sources, and the article has already been tagged "Refimprove" since 2013. The same editor pointed out to me that the names of Knight's Cross recipients are often listed in list articles, which s indeed the case here: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (W), with a citation for the Knight's Cross.

However, it's unclear to me why a stand-alone article is needed while the same information is provided in the list article. Google book search results produce hits to Willi Fey and a few brief mentions in Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy: The Combat History of SS Panzer Regiment 12 by Norbert Számvéber; a self-published author Florian Berger of Selbstverlag ("self-published") Florian Berger; and Bruce Quarrie, a non RS author. I don't believe this meets GNG.

Also pinging GeneralizationsAreBad to see if they would like to revisit with the new information. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added a couple of references to the article. I'm not sure if sigcov is met, though, but I do think it needs to be clarified if the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the highest award available, per my comments here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georg Schönberger. Can anyone help in this regard? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking that perhaps a redirect to the main recipient list would be the best way to go here. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the ping. This is a similar situation to the Paul Senghas AFD, where the individual now passes WP:SOLDIER as a reference to the Knight's Cross has been provided, but remains a non-notable individual nonetheless due to their failing GNG. As I said there, "SOLDIER says that "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if they have received the highest valour award... There is not sufficient coverage, regardless of the reference for the Knight's Cross, to meet GNG standards. After all, SOLDIER is an essay, while GNG is a policy. I continue to support deletion." GAB^gab 23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the Knight's Award is the best claim here but even then, the article is still questionable thus delete as there's nothing else to suggest the convincing notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 23 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.