Deletion of SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz

Comment: First, . Notability is not inherited. Auschwitz is notable, a guard battalion sentry who served at Auschwitz is not. Second, the ones that are notable aren't ''really'' notable for serving at Auschwitz, but for being part of the Nuremberg Trialsand the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials. However, they are already listed there and do not need to be listed again. Finally, and this is a personal opinion, I don't think this is the sort of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. It feels a bit to much like a |directory. I would prefer the external link was simply provided as additional reading on the Auschwitz main page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: first per , articles herein are not governed by statute. Here we have a detailed list that sets out the command structure and personnel for the infamous institution. It could not be covered in the length and detail given if merged into the main article, for example. It would help to expand the article with info. as to the roles of the groups listed in each section and given the fact the main author states above that he plans to merge it with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp is a good idea for general readers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BURO)

Comment: Given the notability of the main article and the current size of the article, as commented above, I would strongly consider it should be kept separate as a |sub-article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: Pretty much established at this point that the article was not a "Cut and paste"" from another website and there are active plans to merge it with another article containing more sources.  To be blunt, I'm also suspicious of an inactive account for nearly two years which is reactivated and the first edit it makes is to post a delete recommendation in a losing argument where most of the votes were to Keep.  That strikes strongly of , if not .  Apologies if I'm out of line.  I just find that very strange
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:MEAT||WP:SOCK)

Comment: I would normally say a list like this should be merged and redirected as an embedded list in the parent article. However, given the article's size it should be kept separate as a |sub-article. That being said; due to  and  I am unsure as to whether all subjects within the list deserve a wikilink per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT||WP:NLIST||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:REDLINK)