Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Paschke


 * 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. See also Articles for deletion/Rudolf Hentze, which is basically the same in terms of sourcing. The "keep" opinions are based only on Paschke's position as a somewhat senior civil servant in Nazi Germany's signals intelligence apparatus, but they do not identify any notability guideline or other basis in our policy or practice that presumes notability for people of his level of seniority. The only really good argument in notability discussions are reliable third-party sources, and there aren't any on offer here. So I have to give less weight to the "keep" arguments.  Sandstein  15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Adolf Paschke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER, his claimed "firsts" appear to be self-published Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the sources that scope creep found on his postwar life count as significant coverage. Both of them just mention Adolf Paschke. I've still seen no sources that would even come close to WP:GNG. buidhe 09:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pers Z S. In secondary sources, all that can be found are passing mentions:, . buidhe 07:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Effective head of Pers Z S for much world war 2.  scope_creep Talk  08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Does Pers Z S satisfy WP:SOLDIER 5? Mztourist (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if he was soldier, then perhaps he would, but he wasn't. He was on the German civil service rank of Beamter.  scope_creep Talk  08:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After the second world war, he was director of the new Unit 114 in the Foreign Ministry, the new intelligence unit of the Bundeswehr. There is more sources available.   scope_creep Talk  08:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not on the page and not clear that meets WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So your effectively stating due to the article not being updated since I created it, somehow it is not notable. Are you for real!!. There is a mountain of sources on him, now it's no longer in the archives. All the directors of these of the types of intelligence units are notable.   scope_creep Talk  08:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is indeed "a mountain of sources on him" that show notability then you can add them in and presumably the consensus will be to keep the page, that's how AFD works. Mztourist (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done more than 2000 Afd. I need no lessons from you.   scope_creep Talk  09:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If that is indeed the case why are you putting up such spurious justifications as these: and ? Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin It is worth noting that the nominating editor had nominated 7 articles I created without any discussion, nor attempt to improve them, nor conducting any prior research to determine if they were even notable. The nominating editor has only completed 57 Afd's and has stated in one of the other Afd's that they saw on my talk page, many Afc rejections, indicating that he is targetting me specifically. The Afc rejections were articles that pulled from the NPP queue, moved to draft and then rejected. I posted them to get a second opinion. I consider this targeting me in this manner, vexatious and disruptive.  scope_creep Talk  09:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I followed WP:BEFORE and found no WP:RS that established notability for any of the 7 pages. The number of AFDs I have been involved in is irrelevant. I haven't targetted User:scope_creep who has from the moment I lodged the AFDs assumed bad faith and been uncivil towards me.Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I think his role makes him just about cross the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete without some serious notability being established in his article. Appears that as a result of the 2008 publication of the papers Bonatz has been subject to further reporting, publication and analysis but it isn't reflected in his article to convey notability. If included with context establishing notability of his work then this is an easy keep. Koncorde (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing much to indicate anything more then a minor functionary.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing shows that he was anything more than a run-of-the-mill wartime cryptanalyst. He gets only passing mentions in books on the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment He does not have an article in the deWP.  DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is neither here nor there really, since all Wikipedias are works in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As a senior section head of Pers Z S, the article assists with overview information of the individuals involved in Germany's cryptoanalysis efforts. Neils51 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Being a member of a notable organization does not confer notability on an individual.Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.