- 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. Most contributors though agree that this is worth covering in one form or another. Sandstein 11:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Franz Strasser (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 appear to meet WP:BIO as indicated; just a mid-rank Nazi official. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect; subject is primarily notable for a crime. The crime appears to have received significant coverage in contemporary news sources of the period, and covered in multiple published books from reputable publishers. That being said the subject would fall under WP:PERP, and not independently notable per WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO. Therefore, the proper course of action would be to redirect the article to the event, and article that has not yet been created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per In ictu oculi. Seem to pass GNG by a mile.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets GNG as this has coverage from multiple sources. Not sure where we stand on war crimes, which this clearly falls under. Maybe the event is the notable thing here. It could also do with being expanded a bit. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge if a suitable merger target can be found. As argued by RightCowLeftCoast, this is a case of someone known for a crime. As a Nazi functionary, he does not merit an entry in Who's Who in Nazi Germany (or the German version). The article has references to the trial transcript and to one page in a book; that is not extensive coverage, even though I was able to find an additional mention through Google; snippet view will not show me it, but Volume 1 (1945) p. 26 of News of Germany apparently contains the text: "The first fair trial ever held in Dachau concentration camp resulted in the conviction of Franz Strasser, 45, of Kaplitz, Czechoslovakia, who was ... 9, 1944, in the former Sudetenland city of Kaplitz where Strasser, a truck driver, was Kreisleiter." So what we have was a lower-level functionary (in a single settlement in the Sudetenland) who was hanged for one multiple killing that, I am afraid, is more illustrative of Nazi barbarity than it is notable in itself. The sources do not demonstrate notability; they are akin to the situation of "100 newspapers" or whatever that essay is titled. It was a brutal crime; perhaps there is an article on the affected unit, or on the battle for Sudetenland, into which the content could be merged. But I do not believe the sources show this man to be notorious enough for a stand-alone article. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The crime is notable as it received significant coverage which continued years after the event occurred. Outright deletion is inadvisable, and the normal outcome for individuals only notable for one event (WP:BIO1E), is to summarize, merge & redirect the content about the perpetrator to the article of the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Formally, it meets the WP:BIO criteria as there are multiple secondary sources (listed in the reflist and which are quite convincing). Agree that the event is the notable thing here rather than Strasser. The article is relatively new and could be expanded and tied into the broad and narrow histories of Nazi war crimes. fiachra10003 (User talk:fiachra10003) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (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.