Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Henze

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. SoWhy 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Henze[edit]

Karl Henze (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 WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link. The best is one para entry in Hitler's Stuka Squadron but it's insufficient, and the rest are passing mentions. Franz Kurowski's Luftwaffe Aces is non RS. No de.Wiki article. Successful completion of missions (# of sorties flown) is not part of SOLDIER.

Per the outcome of the discussion on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists.

In this case, the redirect has been challenged with the rationale that the subject "commanded one of the first bomber wings of the Bundesluftwaffe". No sources have been offered, while command of a wing in peacetime does not meet SOLDIER's criterion of "commanding a significant number of troops in battle". Significant RS coverage on this career in the German Air Force is not found either: link; Kurowski again (Denied Paternity: Wehrmacht Officers Created the Bundeswerh) is non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which references would be sufficient for a stand-alone article? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is probably only one that focuses on him specifically, but his war service seems to have him mentioned, by my count, in at least 40 books (I stopped counting, probably a lot more than that. That's just books, I didn't check articles at all). Considering *also* he is Recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, and he flew like 1000(!) sorties or something, I think all up, this warrants at least a short page for him in Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves. That means he essentially won it twice. Although its ubiquity means the Knight's Cross cannot be considered the highest award, it is certainly important enough to be notable if won more than once. It is certainly on a par with an American winning the DSC twice or a Briton winning the DSO twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOLDIER does not apply in this case. Only the awards for valour are covered by SOLDIER #1, not for meritorious service / successful completion of missions. In any case, SOLIDER is just an essay and is thus subordinate to GNG. We should make sure that Karl Henze has been a subject of significant coverage in independent RS before keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the distinction did matter, you appear to be making an unsupported assumption as to what his Knight's Crosses were awarded for. As far as I'm concerned, it's covered by WP:SOLDIER and that, despite "only" being an essay, is generally recognised as the notability standard for military biographies. In any case, I think there's a very good case for also assuming the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves is covered by WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another bio where one would think given the high award of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and missions flown, one could expand the article with greater detail (cited to RS sources). I don't write on Luftwaffe pilots but I would think someone could expand the article accordingly. It is bare-bones. Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Henze did not receive his awards and flew over 1,000 combat missions. Rather he received the KC because he completed 430 combat missions and earned the Oakleaves because he completed 1,000 combat missions. Yet Wikipedia articles do not honor people for a certain number of combat missions completed, but reflect significant coverage by RS sources. Apart from the KC directories the usual suspects here are notorious militaria writer Franz Kurowski with Verleugnete Vaterschaft. Wehrmachtsoffiziere schufen die Bundeswehr (2000) and former Luftwaffe propagandist George Brütting with Das waren die Stuka Asse. There are also a few lines on him in Mike Spick's Luftwaffe Bomber Aces (2001), a militaria book devoid of any notes and featuring a very small bibliography. So you might put together a career summary as for nearly any other KC recipient, but I do not consider that significant coverage by RS. Bomber pilots did not receive as much as attention as fighter pilots, Hans-Ulrich Rudel being the most notable exception, and neither did Henze.--Assayer (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment -- The keep arguments at this AfD are along the lines of WP:ITSNOTABLE and / or "coverage exists". These are not valid deletion discussion arguments and I believe that they should be discounted. Furthermore, such interpretations of SOLDIER is not consistent with the close of the discussion regarding the "Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners": link, which showed that for a high proportion of Knight's Cross winners, irrespective of grade, significant RS coverage does not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He meets WP:SOLDIER 5 as a Gruppenkommandeur of a unit that specifically saw military action (this is the same level as the Group, which is specifically cited in criterion 5 of SOLDIER). I have the impression that most of the Delete contributors have either not read the article under discussion, or WP:SOLDIER, clearly enough: we should not be having this debate. The oak leaves, in this case, are a complete red herring. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is not much to read about Karl Hanke. Criterion 5 of WP:SOLDIER as such does not presume notability. Rather it is but one criterion to presume that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify as notable. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. To mention Hanke in a list, is exactly what is being proposed, because the coverage in RS is anything but broad.--Assayer (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I believe the last "Keep" vote to be a misinterpretation of SOLDIER #5, which requires a command of
  • "a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents)."
The subject commanded a sub-unit of the Sturzkampfgeschwader 77, being a Gruppenkommandeur. The commander of a wing would be a Kommodor. The subject under discussion topped out as a Major / sub-unit commander in the Luftwaffe; it's a far cry of what SOLDIER requires. In any case, SOLDIER is just an essay and SIGCOV has not been presented by any of the keep voters. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, in 1944 Henze became Kommodore of Schlachtgeschwader 102 and in January 1945 of Schlachtgeschwader 103, both of which were training units and did not see combat. Shortly before the end of the war, in April 1945, he became Kommodore of Schlachtgeschwader 151. And in the Bundeswehr he commanded Jagdbombergeschwader 35. But to come up with that information I had to search certain Internet sites, which I do not consider utterly reliable. Even Kurowski (cited above) deals with these commands only summarily. That's the problem with "significant coverage".--Assayer (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Training wings that did not see combat do not count towards SOLDIER#5. Likewise, commanding a unit during the last month of the war does not count either, IMO, as sorties were limited due to lack of fuel. Essentially, Luftwaffe by that time seized to be an effective fighting force. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that the GNG demands, and he definitely doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't have any experience with WP:SOLDIER, so it's hard for me to judge the merits here. If I were to close this now, I would close it as No Consensus, but I'm going to take the (admittedly unusual) action of relisting this a third time, in the hopes that we can find some clear consensus, not just on this particular article, but on the broader question of what WP:SOLDIER requires. There is a lively debate here, which is touching on valid points, so I'm cautiously optimistic that continuing the discussion might bring us resolution one way or the other
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, honestly we need a temporary speedy delete on these things. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We shuld not be overriding the general guidelines for a instance that is so borderline, both in commo nsense importance and in sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of book mentions. Surviving 1000 combat missions is significant (Allied tours of duty were 25-40 mission before cycling back to inactive/training). Wing commander post-war, and briefly in the war.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient substance for a biography, the medal does not confer notability, references appear to be limited to brief mentions in lists of medal recipients in Wehrmacht fanboy literature.  Sandstein  19:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I added a number of sources - WWII and post-war.. post-war, among other things, he was the first commander of JB-35 (which later became JG-41) - a F-84F bomber wing at new airfield at Husum. He managed to avoid the 1961 F-84 Thunderstreak incident which was JB-32.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the sources added is Franz Kurowski, a known fabulist and apologist. A hack writer with over 400 titles under his own name and various pseudonyms, he is best remembered for his contributions to the Landser-pulp genre, or Landser Hefte. This type of literature aims to heroicise the military men and strays into historical fiction while doing so. Not a suitable source for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - many trivial mentions doesn't equate to significant coverage. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and it's not clear if he passes. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and PhilKnight who reminds us that trivial mentions do not make a significant coverage that notability requires. Ifnord (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karl_Henze&oldid=1137965629"