Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinz Bonatz


 * 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. As in Articles for deletion/Adolf Paschke, many "keep" opinions here amount to "he was a moderately senior Nazi official", which on its own isn't all that much in terms of strength of argument. But there are more sources-based "keep" arguments here, and considerably better sources, which makes it more difficult for me to dismiss the numerical strength of the "keep" side.  Sandstein  15:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Heinz Bonatz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Chief of B-Dienst, the Kriegsmarine naval intelligence operation during during World War II. scope_creep Talk  07:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't satisfy any of the 8 heads of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So an organisation of 80000 men who conducted extensive operations from World war one onwards and was heavily involved in all intelligence aspects of the Kriegsmarine during world war and is mentioned in more sources than your can shake a stick at is not notable.  scope_creep  Talk   07:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is a WP:RS that B-Dienst was "an organization of 80000 men? What was Bonatz's rank? Does this satisfy WP:SOLDIER point 5: "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, an army division or higher, a Commonwealth air group, United States air wing, Soviet/Russian aviation division, or other historical air formation of equivalent size, generally two levels above a squadron)"? Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, you have not done research,, apart from the most cursory examination of the articles and have no understanding what your talking about. It took me full 18 months of work to enable me write the B-Dienst article, after I was show an academic article that was to be published on it and decided to make a go at creating at article on it, which was extremely difficult. He was an intelligence officer most of his life. There is many many Gbook references on him.  scope_creep Talk  08:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an AFD about Bonatz, not B-Dienst. Bonatz does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. From my quick read of the B-Dienst page and specifically the section Chronic personnel requirements, it appears that its peak strength was 275 which does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER point 5. 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although just below flag rank, I think his role makes him easily notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm going with WP:SOLDIER: Played an important role in a significant military event  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Which "major battle or campaign"? And what was his "important role"? Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Battle of the Atlantic, head of the unit which broke BAMS and made at least some contribution to the work itself, beyond leading the unit.&mdash;eric 19:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read Battle of the Atlantic, the only clear reference to B Dienst is this sentence "The best source proved to be the codebreakers of B-Dienst who had succeeded in deciphering the British Naval Cypher No. 3, allowing the Germans to estimate where and when convoys could be expected." which is unreffed. Then there's the section Germans break Admiralty codes which is also unreffed and doesn't refer to B Dienst.Mztourist (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much coverage just passing mentions:, , , , and this source, which has a paragraph on him and quotes him a few times. Doesn't seem like GNG is there so redirecting (to B-Dienst) is probably the best option. buidhe 10:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So your first reference is Captain Heinz Bonatz, Chief Marine intelligence 1970 and you don't think he is notable, even though I know there is at least a dozen NSA documents on him as he is major post war intelligence figure. He is military historian David Kahn talking about him with even more references.   scope_creep Talk  11:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 Bonatz has been subject to further reporting, publication or analysis. His work may be notable, but it would need to again be contextualised. He appears to have been a published author, looks (per some of those provided by Buidhe above and my own searches) to be a reference point for some historians; so it is probable his work has been analysed by historians and / or extend beyond the papers released but that isn't currently in his article to convey notability. Koncorde (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty much as per Koncorde.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bonatz was director on a major world war 2 organisation. What worries me is the inherent bias in this approach taken with these Afd's, that while is OK for folk like Turing, Dilly Knox, Braithwaite  and so on are abe to have articles, but their diametrically opposed numbers on the German side aren't allowed to have articles. It strikes as slightly unfair and a disservice to Wikipedia, affirming WP:BIAS. More so because, while Bletchley Park wasn't bombed during the war, most of their members went back to work and wrote reams of stuff after the war, which was easy to access by historians, whereas these folk were bombed out (quite rightly so) and leaving almost no documentation available, except the two books he wrote after the war. There is none of the types of documents that provides sources for example, the Bletchley park article. The first book that David Kahn which he wrote is on B-Dienst. There is sufficient to make him notable. He is not some apparatchik that just turned up, he was working during the whole the interwar period. He is notable.   scope_creep Talk  15:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Its called wp:n, if he was so notable I would be seeing a lot more than I am in the way of sourcing. IN all the examples you give there are sources about them, not their work, not the department they worked for, about them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can prove the notability through reliable sources then do so, otherwise this is just original research and your own pet project. B-Dienst being notable does not confer notability to everyone associated with it. This is not bias, we're asking for the same level of support. Koncorde (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * By my count User:scope_creep alone has created 48 bio pages about German cryptanalysts and signals intelligence personnel, of which I have put up 7 for AFD. I'm not sure how many pages exist for people who worked at Bletchley Park etc., but I don't believe that there's any WP:BIAS here. Mztourist (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Soapbox alert) Not on our part, but there may be a (off Wiki) cultural bias in sources towards things like Bletchley and against anyone who worked for the NAZIS. But we cannot do anything about that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom or possibly redirect to B-Dienst. As the summary in B-Dienst indicates, he didn't seem to have much of an effect. Just occupying a mid-level post doesn't satisfy SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Head of B-Dienst is enough, regardless of how much or little he did there. I would certainly not consider it a midlevel position. ANd when in doubt, I accept the decision of the deWP, which has an article. Their standards are highere than ours for biographies (there are some WPs that may give preferential treatment to adminsitrative of military figures in the corresponding countries that we would not consider notable, but for the deWP I think that even here their standards are higher. In fact, for German military history in general their standards are higher  not just of for inclusion but  for article writing and o f freedom from disputes and lack of influence of any desire to magnify the accomplishment of WWII officers DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. establishes notability by tying to prewar and early successes of B Dienst. Commander Heinz Bonatz, at the head of the B Service, had in fact been studying the Royal Navy's signal traffic for years, and by 1939 had produced a document entitled "The System of British Wireless Communications." The Germans thus held a commanding lead. tho does not clearly attribute everything to Bonatz. Also significat coverage in  and many passing mentions. Meets both WP:SOLDIER #4 and WP:GNG.&mdash;eric 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Head of B-Dienst is a notable figure (easy WP:PRESERVE + WP:NOTPAPER case). Also good arguments by  and . I am getting very uncomfortable about the series of simultaneous AfD that the above nom has made with very short rationales? Britishfinance (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to B-Dienst – notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter what unit he led; I don't see NSOLDIER as an alternative to BASIC/GNG, and I don't see two independent in-depth reliable secondary sources about this individual. All we about this guy (which is basically his resume) is better included in the B-Dienst article. – Levivich 13:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Its pioneer and present chief, Lieutenant-Commander Heinz Bonatz, had started systematically studying British naval wireless communications as soon as he joined the German Navy in 1934. The characteristics of the transmissions, their customary pattern, periods of special intensity, mode of delivery, wave-lengths most often used&mdash;such details, collected over the years, in the end presented a 'fair enough' insight into British signalling procedure and technique. Bonatz wrote all his findings in a secret brochure entitled 'The System of British Wireless Communications', with the aid of which the monitoring service began to achieve results soon after the war broke out. This Afd is setting a very high bar for both WP:SOLDIER and especially WP:GNG. There is plenty for a very nice article.&mdash;eric 15:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If the RSes talk about the subject in the context of talking about B service, and all the RS material we have supports a paragraph or maybe two about the subject, then I think it serves our reader better to talk about the subject in a paragraph or two in the article about B service. It has nothing to do, really, with standards, or rank, or anything like that. It's just about: what material do we have, and where's the best place for it? I don't think it's in a stand-alone. – Levivich 18:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our current guidelines seem unduly slanted towards field officers. The ranks of people in intelligence operations has traditional been much lower than people of corresponding importance elsewhere, e  (except possibly in Russia).Ican only speculate why, but I think perhaps they have been usually regarded with a certain contempt by regular field officers as being essentially civilians in function, not fighting in actual combat. (An analogy I know a little more about is the way that for many earlier centuries gunners were civilian specialists, as were surgeons.) We should go by historical significance, not by rank or size of unit alone.  DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article makes little references to his books, which get referenced in several other books, such as: 'The Invisible Weapon: Telecommunications and International Politics, 1851-1945'. He gets several paragraphs in 'Power at Sea, Volume 2', including P105 In 1939, B-Dinenst's commander, Heinz Bonatz, produced a document entitled The System of British Wireless Communications based on nearly 5 years of intensive study, goes into more detail on his work on Page 118 and Page 204. I don't see why we would Redirect to B-Dienst, when none of his books or these sources talking about his work are mentioned in that article? Britishfinance (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then add them into the B Dienst page as User:Levivich suggests above.Mztourist (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that makes sense (he is probably also a potential case of NAUTHOR given his notable and referenced works on a specific niche area); I would be mre with EricR that this could be a bigger article. Does not make sense to me to merge this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 17 January 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.