Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Germany. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Germany|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany/archive

watch

• See also: Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Germany related AfDs Scan for Germany related Prods Scan for Germany related TfDs

Germany

Caisa (instrument)

Caisa (instrument) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Googled it and found nothing but the inventor and some small websites selling it. German Wikipedia also has an article without sources on it. Probably fails WP:GNG AGibberishUsername (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Germany. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 05:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Handpan, the generic name for this family of instruments. No sourced content to merge, and I couldn't find anything more. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Academia Europaea

Academia Europaea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An un-salvageable WP:PROMO mess... The only scholarly article referred is cited 0 times and has no abstract. My personal search returned only WP:PRIMARY sources. Therefore fails WP:GNG. MitYehor📘^^talk 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Organizations, Schools, Social science, Germany, and United Kingdom. MitYehor📘^^talk 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Withdrawn I wish to withdraw this nomination as a nominator. This was my mistake. MitYehor📘^^talk 14:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep There are enough independent sources. Grimes2 23:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the Dickson, Collins, and National Academy sources count for WP:3REFS. The other references are in many cases primary, non-independent, and overly specific (not counting the Abbott source which covers an important point but does not lend notability) and I think the article has been marred by COI editing and the addition of unencyclopedic cruft, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I see... so would deletion of WP:PRIMARY content be warranted here? (Which is roughly 40%-50% of all content?) MitYehor📘^^talk 10:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think informed and careful trimming of the article might be a good idea. Indiscriminate cutting of primary-sourced material is not the same thing, though. Primary sources, and non-independent sources (not the same thing as each other) do not contribute to notability but they can still be reliable and can still be used to source article material when appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not to be annoying, but Offices, Awards and Prizes, (and especially) Mission and Academic Management sections violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOT (not Linkedin). I agree that my nomination was hasty, but the same Wiki standards deserve to be applied to all institutions, regardless of academic merit. MitYehor📘^^talk 14:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Princess Antoinette of Anhalt

Princess Antoinette of Anhalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

She seems notable only for her genealogy (WP:NOTGENEALOGY), like many articles of this sort. Much of the article is hardly even about her, and the only reference mentioning her son's death only mentions her as his mother. The best course of action would be to redirect to her father or husband, of which I think her father would be the most stable option. OliviaRigby (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. OliviaRigby (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

SRH Hochschule Berlin

SRH Hochschule Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Not a single independent source is cited in the article, and no sufficient ones could be located. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I am also nominating:

SRH University Heidelberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The second article does technically have a few independent sources but none that are otherwise useful for notability. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to SRH University Heidelberg. The German Berlin school article says the school has been merged along with several other SRH schools into the Heidelberg school. The Berlin school is no more, and a merge and redirect makes sense. The German Wikipedia has an SRH holding article about the parent of the schools, described as follows:
  The SRH includes private universities, general and vocational schools, technical schools, educational centres for further education and vocational rehabilitation, as well as hospitals and rehabilitation clinics.
  If you Google SRH Holding German, the AI tells you:
  SRH Holding is a major non-profit foundation in Germany providing education and healthcare services, operating private universities across multiple campuses. Founded in 1966 and headquartered in Heidelberg, the group employs over 17,000 people and manages 18 university campuses serving more than 16,000 students.
  Since there's no SRH Holding article yet on the English Wikipedia, we can't merge and redirect both, but to make it simple, why don't we do one redirect, and then work on expanding the Heidelberg article to try to match the SRH holding German article? I haven't tried to look for some sources for the parent, in case anyone speaks German and wants to try. Maybe post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Gauya (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't disagree that SRH Holding might conceivably be notable, but right now I don't see any actual evidence for WP:NORG. The German Wikipedia article is longer but just as useless in terms of sources – I can't see a single source usable for NORG in its references. If it was on English Wikipedia I would have nominated it too. The long and short of it is that across all the existing articles and my WP:BEFORE search, I am not aware of a single source that would meet the criteria of NORG, let alone a sufficient number of them. Of course, if someone can find them, great!, but right now we just don't have them. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Princess Amalie of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Princess Amalie of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject lacks notability beyond her genealogy (WP:NOTGENEALOGY) and search results (along with looking at other language articles) yield nothing to establish notability either, and the one source that is cited for this page is deprecated. The best option I think would be to redirect to her husband or father's article. OliviaRigby (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. OliviaRigby (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"This page uses content from the English Wikipedia. The original content was at Princess Amalie of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen," says the reference. My searches are coming up blank too. I agree with redirect but I am uncertain which target should take precedence. SenshiSun (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to her husband. It is more natural to list her children (already included) and some details of her biography (cause of death, parents) there instead of the article about her father. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to her husband, which already hosts most of the relevant info. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, to her husband's article, and as reasonable in these circumstances. For the record, I tagged the article as having one source, but at the time I couldn't decide what to do next. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Fahrdorf massacre

Fahrdorf massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draftification, so taking to AfD as advised by an admin. The topic of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT due to a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. There are no sources from after the crime took place in 1970 to show that it was notable or had lasting impact. Possible redirect to List of mass shootings in Germany where it is already listed. MidnightMayhem (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany. MidnightMayhem (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'd also like to note that another version of this article using the same sources was closed as merge in a December 2025 AfD. MidnightMayhem (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  It was closed as merge and then against that merge consensus removed from that article by a different editor because it "wasn't notable" (which doesn't apply to article contents). PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I do agree that this does not pass NEVENT. However, I do think this is a documented historical event that is due weight to mention on the article of the tiny town where it occurred. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Verena Metze-Mangold

Verena Metze-Mangold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the sources are primary and merely confirm she held roles. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Politics, and Germany. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Cats That Look Like Hitler!

Cats That Look Like Hitler! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The given coverage in otherwise reliable news sources is not reliable because it is meant to be humorous. This can be judged by the tone of the pieces. CNN and PopMatters have retracted their article, so this means that they did not consider it reliable, or that it had some other issue which lead them to omit it. The first article by The Times is not WP:SIGCOV, its entirety is too short. The piece by Times of Israel is generally about cats whose appearance resembles Hitler's, not this website, so it can't count towards the notability of this page. I don't think talk shows should be considered reliable, since they are usually just ran by news media to make extra media, are sometimes unscripted, and not verified with as much scrutiny as print-pieces are. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Internet, and Germany. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• HerrHeulsuse, when you say that "CNN and PopMatters have retracted their article", do you mean that when you click the >15-year-old links, the websites no longer have that article posted at that specific URL? PopMatters rearranged their website; the old article is now at https://www.popmatters.com/mein-kat-2495791747.html I don't know if CNN keeps a public archive of every single bit of TV news they've ever done. However, that doesn't mean that "they did not consider it reliable"; websites rearrange things, or remove old content, for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with reliability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  As for possible sources, at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, I mostly find passing references, but there's a quarter page in the July 21, 2006 issue of HX Magazine (issue 776, page 58) with basic information. Maclean's had a 2007 article, "Hitler is Hilarious" that analyzes this website in terms of whether the humor is transgressive (answer: yes, but not out of bounds). A 2022 academic journal article has a different, more complex take on the value of ridiculing Hitler, and uses this website as an example.

  Fortean Times says it's an example of pareidolia in an article titled "Sacred geometry of the VW Polo", which is mostly about the Volkswagen Polo rather than feline-focused websites. First Things had more than Wikipedia:One hundred words on the site in their February 2010 issue, page 67.

  In short, I think it's not an unreasonable subject for an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  The search for sources is respectable, but these fall well short of WP:SIGCOV. These are all examples of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or are merely name-drops. 11WB 💬 23:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment also Hi Hitler! has in-depth coverage of the website and reactions to it on pp. 319-322.Shazback (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Cats and the Internet#Cat media and news websites. There are sources but I don't think it still needs a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to me that the sources cited on the page are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT, so the topic is notable for our purr-poses. The fact that the coverage is humorous in tone is not a problem, because we expect humorous topics like this one to be cited to sources that treat it humorously, and Wikipedia publishes articles on things that are funny if they are notable. Additional sources described above go further to establish WEBCRIT passage. As WAID correctly points out above, the nomination is wrong to assert that some of the cited sources have been retracted. I've checked, and the sources have actually been archived, which happens all the time. Some of the links to the Wayback Machine are painfully slow to load, but they are still reliable sources for us. In my opinion, the page could also be expanded to include such cats at other sites on the net, and not just be about a single website, especially given that some of the sources go into that. I don't particularly object to, instead, merging to Cats and the Internet (either the Cat media and news websites section, or the Internet memes section, depending on the content to be merged), but I also don't see an obstacle to keeping it as a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm coming back to say that the revision of the page by Preimage, as well as their refutations of the merge arguments in this discussion, have reinforced my initial opinion that keep is the best outcome. Although we could merge, I am unconvinced by arguments that we should merge, because the source-based arguments to do so have been refuted, and the remaining arguments are matters of preference rather than policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources provided by WAID and Trypto appear to be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge: This should be merged to Cats and the Internet#Cat media and news websites. The current sources are extremely poor and do not demonstrate WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The Times of Israel article doesn't even mention the site. @Tryptofish's article expansion suggestion has merit, but would require an WP:RM, else it would violate WP:SYNTH (and WP:COATRACK by extension). I support @Reywas92's suggestion as the common sense solution. The site simply isn't notable enough for a standalone article anymore. 11WB 💬 23:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Cats and the Internet as suggested above. This looks like a permastub, with all the sources pointing to basically the same information, rather than the ability to expand it. Also, the Times of Israel source is about genetics (ie: why cats look like Hilter) rather than the website itself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Note. An editor (not me) has significantly rewritten and expanded the article, so that might perhaps change the considerations here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:SHORTTEXT, the majority of encyclopedic coverage (that which is from academic papers) can be kept even if we merge. I don't think this is necessarily worth keeping the article HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. The "new" sources are those that were linked above and consist only of trivial mentions. 11WB 💬 10:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I am sympathetic to User talk:HerrHeulsuse's viewpoint: I would probably also have nominated this article if I had been in the same shoes as them; its initial state (poorly sourced, with only the PopMatters source counting as secondary) reflected poorly on the encyclopedia, and I was leaning towards recommending a merge myself. However, I then did my due diligence, found an alternative TWL source for Ch. 6 of Rosenfeld (2014) (first posted by User:Shazback above, but with a Google Books link I couldn't actually read, a challenge I assume was also encountered by my fellow reviewers here), realized this was actually a serious, heavily-cited academic secondary source, found the dewiki version of the article which cites two other secondary academic sources, then went and rewrote it to align with these three sources alongside Brottman (2007), the only high-quality secondary source cited by the original article.
  While both the sources I added from dewiki, Lickhardt (2018) and Simon (2024), have Kitler-as-meme as primary topic, they also contain significant coverage of the website as popularizer of the meme, i.e. they treat both topics together, just as the revised article does. In fact, I feel there's more that could probably be squeezed out of these sources; I found translating a dense article in German academese covering such niceties as the decontextualization of the Peircean semiotics of the Hitler mustache-fringe icon by the Kitler website and meme (Lickhardt p.106: "Nun ist die Zeichenrelation zwischen dem Schnurrbart-Scheitel-Schema und Hitler letztlich aber nur bedingt ikonisch im Sinne Charles Peirces. ... Das Schnurrbart-Scheitel-Schema wird aber durch die Existenz der ursprünglichen »Cats that look like Hitler«-Seite bzw. durch die Existenz der Kitlers dekontextualisiert.") quite tiring (translating is always easier when you have good subject-matter knowledge, and semiotics is well outside my usual chemistry and math areas of focus), and in the end I wasn't confident enough in my ability to capture all the nuances required to fully complete the job here (I note the dewiki article uses this source in quite a superficial way, so perhaps it's even hard for native-speakers to digest).
  The one thing I am convinced of is that these new sources are not all pointing to basically the same information, and they do not contain only trivial mentions of the article topic; the other part of User:11WB's statement, that The "new" sources are those that were linked above, is also factually incorrect.
  I wouldn't be completely opposed to a merge into Adolf Hitler in popular culture#Internet, as this is the context in which all three of the academic sources used treat the Kitler meme and website. However, that article is already 12000 words long, quite close to the 15000 threshold where WP:TOOLARGE "almost certainly" recommends a split. I do not believe that a merger would be sensible given the rewritten article is already policy-compliant. Preimage (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  12,000 words?! That's complete nonsense. The article is 5,750 words, nowhere close to what you're claiming. I also don't appreciate being contradicted incorrectly, so please don't ping me just to quote me to say that. Editors are expected to look for sources, and have the WP:CHOICE. While it may be tiring, we can't be in the realm of using sympathy as a reason to keep an article that doesn't meet the required notability threshold. 11WB 💬 07:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The tool neglected to include the bullet pointed text, which brings the word count up to about 9,500. That's near the 10,000 barrier, but is still not at the number claimed originally. (I assume the references were included in your word count total? As an FYI, we don't count those.) This is a case of WP:SURMOUNTABLE regardless and cannot be used as a rationale against merging. 11WB 💬 07:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. https://prosesize.toolforge.org/?title=+Adolf+Hitler+in+popular+culture&domain=en.wikipedia.org returns 5689 words, but as you say, this omits the lists. If I instead copy the article rendering from that tool into https://wordcounter.net, omitting the "see also" section and below, I get 9891 words. The remaining (small) discrepancy between our estimates is probably due to whether to count things like image captions and section titles (WP:WORDCOUNT), but I'd rather not nitpick over that, we both agree Adolf Hitler in popular culture is just under 10k. So yeah, I stand corrected; it's back on the table as a potential merge target.

  I think there are two remaining issues to work through:

  (1) Does the article topic meet WP:N (I'd argue yes; you'd argue no; that's why I was complaining about your statement that all the sources added had already been mentioned in this AfD discussion, because that implies you must not have noticed the two academic secondary sources I added from dewiki instead, and they're kind of relevant to an assessment here; WP:SURMOUNTABLE indicates that you should directly assess the sources, rather than requiring me to do all the writing myself).

  (2) Even if WP:N is met, should we merge the article for some other reason (WP:MERGEREASON)? IMO the strongest justification for merging is WP:MERGECON, i.e. whether coverage of the website and meme naturally belongs within a broader context. The observation that led me to revise the article, rather than simply recommending a merge, is that there's a split between secondary sources. Brottman (2007) covers the website within the context of "cute, comical animals", but our other three secondary sources cover the website within the context of the 'Hitler meme' (as Rosenfeld puts it). Is the 3:1 split determinative? If our one good non-academic secondary source (from PopMatters, "an international online magazine of cultural criticism") takes a different perspective to the academic sources, is that a reason to keep the article as standalone rather than merging it to a target that will only cover it from one of those two perspectives? Why did three other AfD !voters advise merging the article to Cats and the Internet#Cat media and news websites if that isn't a perspective we think is relevant? But yeah, to some extent this will be a matter of taste. Preimage (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I apologise for overreacting to the word count number you gave. It was more so shock as 12,000 seemed astronomical and would have put it in the 99th percentile! It's extremely uncommon for articles to reach such a size. 9,800 still isn't great, and funnily enough, keeps it in that same 99th percentile. So if we go by that statistic, you were more accurate than my initial 5,750 figure.

  Regarding MERGEREASON, I see that this has been cited a lot recently, no doubt due to the reallocation of WP:PAM to AfD that took place earlier this year. My argument to that is as follows: only AfDs that are opened as merge proposals should have that apply over WP:GNG. In this case, the nominator opened this AfD as a deletion discussion, not a merge proposal, so MR does not apply. It remains an ATD instead, per WP:ATD-M. 11WB 💬 10:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Merging is an ATD only when there's a reason to merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  It is only an ATD in deletion discussions (such as this one), it is not an ATD in PAM AfDs as it is the foremost proposal. Just to be clear, if notability (as it is here), is the main issue, that cannot be cast aside in favour of answering MERGEREASON. In PAMs, there is greater importance on giving a reason for merging. 11WB 💬 13:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Others

See also

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Germany related pages including deletion discussions