Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Feichtner


 * 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 no consensus. Disregarding Scope creep's view because they are now indef blocked for harassment. But consensus to delete is still not clear enough.  Sandstein  13:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ferdinand Feichtner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Page is almost entirely based on Feichtner's own account including all the claimed "innovations in cryptanalysis, radio, radar, radio direction-finding (D/F) and communication intelligence" and so does not satisfy "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only other references are for specific technologies/events and not Feichther himself Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Mentioned in several sources as Chief signals officer for Luftwaffe South, of which there is little on Wikipedia. By the end of the war, he was Chief Signals Officer with the rank of Colonel of Luftwaffe in the west.  scope_creep Talk  07:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't meet 2, 4 or 5 of WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although just below general officer rank, I think his role makes him easily notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments as above: no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and doesn't meet any of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Meeting WP:SOLDIER generally equals notable, but not meeting WP:SOLDIER does not equal not notable. We have to judge each article on its merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the fact that its all WP:PRIMARY with no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A weirdly detailed article for a non-notable subject. The only significant-ish coverage in a secondary source I can find is this. He is not even mentioned in most of the secondary sources cited in the article. Also, he does not meet WP:SOLDIER. I suggest  a redirect, but regardless the entire current article text needs to be scrapped per WP:PRIMARY policy: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources". buidhe 09:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also serious neutrality issues which derive from the overreliance on primary sources. E.g. "beautifully systematic practices" described in the "Increase in Partisan Activity mid 1944" which also has shades of selective empathy to it: How dare those tricky partisans steal our expensive equipment!! "Rumanian treachery" is not a neutral way to discuss Romania's decision to switch sides in 1944. buidhe 10:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That's not a reason for deletion though.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm seeing enough references in independent sources to establish notability.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Hawkeye7 Please provide them. Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, wow! hasn't anybody noticed the length of this article? at over 20,000 words it is more than double the max desired length of the usual article, if kept, some serious pruning (or breakout articles?) will be required. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's nothing compared to the length of Luftnachrichten Abteilung 350. Mztourist (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * double wow!! we may need to call up a couple of dragons to clean these up. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm not sure what can or should be done about it and some other overlong obscure pages. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the de WP does not have an article, and for German military figures (and bios in most other fields also) I give great respect to the practices of the deWP, which has high standards and a critical attitude. (Some of the other articles in this group of afds do have corresponding articles in deWQP, and there I'd follow their practices as well, and keep them I don't think it rational to pretend we can decide better.    DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a plan to create a German article in de Wikipedia in 2018, although I don't know what came of it. The military historian that was going to create the article, I think he decided to retire early and i've not heard much from him since. Looking at it rationally, this is a senior Luftwaffe colonel who ran Luftwaffe signals at the end of the war, before and after the invasion, and ran Luftwaffe South, a truly vast area. He is as notable as it gets. There is no other individual of this type on Wikipedia. Most of what the Americans, the British, Spanish, Dutch, most European countries, even Italy have done, is still kept under lock and key. Simply put the information is not available. The real clue into what these kind of systems were, how they worked and the people that used them, happened after second world war. There has been nothing since, nothing on the Vietnam war, nothing on the Gulf War. The only window that was opened into this clandestine world that revealed it in depth, was when Germany surrounded and the British and American had a chance to take a look and see how another nation state did it. And the only reason we know is it became public domain, 10's of millions of document. The sad thing is, you will not find a single document, anywhere discussing in depth how American or British signals, meaning intelligence ,worked in a military environment. Not even right back to Napoleonic age. That is why we need these types of articles. It really does worry me this continual push to reaffirm bias.  scope_creep Talk  14:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you had retired. You have already created Pers Z S, B-Dienst, Signal Intelligence Regiment (KONA), German Naval Intelligence Service and the vastly overlong Luftnachrichten Abteilung 350 (381KB), General der Nachrichtenaufklärung (355KB) and German Radio Intelligence Operations during World War II (248KB), so the topic of German cryptanalysis and signals intelligence is more than adequately covered. We do not also need bios of every person who worked for those organisations, particularly not this overlong personal account of a non-notable individual. If there is any bias here its that German signals intelligence is overrepresented. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If DGG has retired, what the hell's he doing on the current arbcom :) ——   SN  54129  08:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Serial Number 54129, not DGG, User:scope_creep who apparently retired 2 days ago. Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another wiki having or not having an article on a subject is neither here nor there really. All wikis are works in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The text is almost entirely sourced to the subject's post-war interrogations. Contrary to some statements above, there is no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  What coverage is significant is neither independent nor reliable.  Fails GNG and even possible passing of SNG's is only an indication that GNG may apply, which it clearly does not in this case. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is sourced to a particular SIGCOV, however, per the refs, his name is listed/covered in other chronicles of the war.  I could see a WP:PRESERVE or WP:NOTPAPER arguement here; there is certainly no WP:PROMO/WP:UPE aspect, so I can't see a compelling rationale to delete? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there isn't "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The entire enormous page is his own personal account.Mztourist (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many historical figures in WP for whom the only GNG we have are what they wrote about themselves, but we chronicle them as WP:PRESERVE. Per the article, he is clearly also getting listed and chronicled in other databases for the period.  Britishfinance (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? That's not my understanding of how GNG and RS should work. This is all entirely his own account, completely unverified and WP:GNG and WP:V come before WP:PRESERVE. I dispute that there is any signicant coverage, merely passing mentions which don't satisfy GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't even see passing mentions anywhere reliable, near as i can tell all other refs in the article are tangential and don't mention Feichtner. Jennings below only has the one source. Does Seabourne Report spell his name wrong or something?&mdash;eric 17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Easily independent significant coverage in the very first result: tho sourced entirely to the Seabourne Report,but I am finding almost nothing in German.  you have any sources in German? Are we using the wrong first name/spelling/rank in searches?&mdash;eric 14:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , please be aware that SC is currently blocked, so will not be able to answer your query for the time being. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Colonel of the Luftwaffe who has come to the attention of some historians such as Christian Jennings.  Article could have a lot of Feichtner supplied minutiae removed.  Almost a third of the length of the article List of Supernatural characters, so a little long! - Neils51 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per DDG and DE. Lack of anything outside Seabourne Report or in German is worrying.&mdash;eric 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 09:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOFULLTEXT also applies here as this is all Feichtner's personal account. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.