Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Hentze

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. I'm not giving much weight to Scope creep's defense of the article, given that they are currently blocked indef for harassing others about AfD nominations such as this one. And we have no serious counterarguments to the policy-based concerns that this is basically original historical research based on primary sources. Sandstein 15:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Hentze[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Chief Signals Officer of the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung during much of World War II. This was a secret organisation that was unknown to the allies, but nevertheless present for much of the war. Documentation that verifies his existence was only realised by the NSA in 2008. scope_creep^Talk 07:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of WP:SOLDIER do you believe he falls under? Mztourist (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think his role makes him just about notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing any coverage in a single reliable secondary source. The article needs to be nuked because it is entirely based on primary sources in contravention of WP:PRIMARY policy. b uidhe 10:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are secondary sources not primary, created by the American TICOM and British CSDIC units after the war. All facts were verified to the best extent of the individual unit and only facts that could be verified were included in the documents. They went considerable lengths to verify certain facts, sometimes spending months looking for certain individuals. There was two main reasons for this, 1. they were looking for Soviet agents, 2. They used them to define a response to the fact that they thought their own encryption was broken during the war, which happened in part. So in some instances, they went to extraordinary lengths to verify certain facts to ensure they military communications were secure. They considered them so important and so secret that most of the NSA document were locked up until 2008, and the vast majority of documents related to this, are still locked up. So sources do exist on this dude, and many more particularly on the GDNA. They are absolutely secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 11:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that those are still primary sources, because they are based on those agencies' original research for a particular practical purpose. I don't think that they help in establishing notability, but if you disagree RSN seems like the right venue for that question. b uidhe 11:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree and have to say that they are secondary sources, in that they are actively interpreting and investigating primary sources of information, providing analysis and then publishing their own documentation collating this information. In short: Just Reporting = Primary. Analysis = Secondary. Whether this makes it notable for a biography is a separate issue as the historic records are really not intended to establish notability. In fact as secret documents they are intended to not be notable. It might be that the unit is notable, and in the future analysis by further reliable sources may elevate such a person. Koncorde (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without some serious notability being established. Appears to just be a named individual in the Reich who was reported on in government secret papers. No indication that as a result of the 2008 publication of the papers Hentze has been subject to further reporting, publication or analysis. His work may be notable, but it would need to again be contextualised. Some of the information may be relevant to General der Nachrichtenaufklärung if it isn't already included. Koncorde (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these article aren't even finished. I have two FOIA request outs for the last 2 years and still waiting for it. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So original research too? If we're relying on us seeking out data then we are becoming the source. Koncorde (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the case. This is a misunderstanding of original research. All article writing requires research in the sense of seeking out reliable sources. We often go to libraries to find sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source". A FOIA is not a published source (unless, like with recent Trump impeachment requests, they are subsequently covered in secondary sources). Accessing a library is accessing previously published freely accessible public records. Accessing public records is generally something we may do only for the basic facts, and where possible it is better for us to utilise reliable contemporary secondary and tertiary sources. We don't typically go seeking out records to write our articles where the source of records is itself unpublished. Koncorde (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another article on moonstone whose only notability is that they were just another nazi.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yet another example of cryptanalystcruft unsupported by substantial reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He wasn't just another Nazi. It is a senior position in the biggest intelligence agency at the time. scope_creep^Talk 15:34, 15 January 2020 (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.