Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cipher Department of the High Command of the Luftwaffe


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Luftwaffe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I know that military history is very well developed (and that's great) but I think this article is simply not encyclopedic. Scope-wise, it fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. The current references all seem to be primary, a series of US Army reports hosted on Google Drive? I did a search for English and German names in Google Books and Scholar and come up with nothing. And even the very name suggests it was a very minor organizational unit. At best, I'd recommend that the author saves this as draft, and reworks it into something that can't be published in academic literature, then we could consider recreating this (because I also think the current article fails WP:NOR too). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It has been cut out of the main article 2 days ago, to try and reduce its size. It operated in the Eastern front, the western front, the southern front and in Africa and has been in existence from 1923 to present. It is still operating as an organisation. During World War II, it had 80000 soldiers working for it. All the references are primary because there is no information on it, apart from what is collected by American and British intelligence after the war. All the archives were blown up in March 1944. You won't find any information anywhere apart from what in Seabourne documents. Hence the reason why there is almost no articles on the Luftwaffe.   scope_creep Talk  10:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which just stresses that you (and others working on this) have stumbled upon a fascinating topic that needs to be written about by scholars first. WP:NOR is pretty clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The signals intelligence department of an entire military branch is notable given its potential impact on the war. Secondary source coverage - organization better known by abbreviation 'Chi-Stelle': here, here, here, here. Also several German mentions can be found by this search. This is just sources on Google books and there are likely more offline. Kges1901 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR Mztourist (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources


 * Keep, While article itself is inappropriately sourcing Googledoc/primary resources, there exists secondary research, which means the article is poorly written as is, but is appropriate for Wikipedia. The content in the GDocs could be reploaded to wikisource Shushugah (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As per comments above, it appears that there are sufficient suitable sources for the article but some rewriting may be required.Tracland (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep there are sufficient reliable secondary sources independent of the subject in German and English identified above to write a comprehensive article, this is about a branch of an enormous armed service that participated in WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peacemaker67 and Kges1901. 2407:7000:9B26:2506:D077:480F:DE33:DE2 (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Notable topic. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing wrong with using primary sources to source an article; article passes WP:GNG on the basis that sufficient reliable secondary sources independent of the subject exist.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.