Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert von Denffer


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Herbert von Denffer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Totally non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article has German Wikipedia equivalent. Part of the aristocratic Denffer family of Germany.   scope_creep Talk  08:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason to keep, notability is NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a soldier, he worked for the German civil service, i.e a Beamter. scope_creep Talk  08:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead states that he "worked as a cryptanalyst in Referat F, the Mathematical Referat, as part of the Inspectorate 7/VI, that was the signals intelligence agency of the Wehrmacht, before and during World War II. He would later work for the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung, the successor organization to the In 7/VI, specifically undertaking research in general theory of cryptography." Even if not a soldier he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of the German aristocratic Dennffer family that has been notable for more than 300 years.  scope_creep Talk  08:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is getting circular: NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It is worth noting that Herbert von Denffer has his own coat of arms de:Herbert von Denffer.  scope_creep Talk  09:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not notable. Mztourist (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When you have a coat of arms, your automatically notable, as he is part of German nobility. That was the reason I created the article in the first place. That is the last time I will be talking to you.  scope_creep Talk  09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide the WP policy that states "When you have a coat of arms, your automatically notable". Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing more than an obscure cryptanalyst and "actuarial mathematician". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. on the basis of the deWP article. They are much better to judge 1notability in this field than we are--and it's not tha tthe are particular kind to their own historical figures--unlike some WPs they have in general higher standards for all biographies than we do, but that they have a better understanding of what makes a notable career in most fields, DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per - I also think de-WP has a higher bar than en-WP for BLPs, and this individual is German. The three refs (and the links in the authority control) show clearly that this individual's bio is being recorded and archived on several important databases for his niche.  Britishfinance (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where this deWP is better than enWP approach comes from. I would note that the 3 refs on the deWP page are all English sources, 1 is a very brief mention on the Mathematics Genealogy Project Department of Mathematics North Dakota State University (the same as the first ref on this page) another is a blog called CryptoCellar Tales, so not RS at all and I can't open the third one. Do you really think that is adequate sourcing for the deWP page? What are the "several important databases" you refer to? Mztourist (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He is listed at the German National Library, the Humboldt University of Berlin Archive, and the Mathematics Genealogy Project in the US. Anybody familar with de-WP knows that they have a much higher bar for BLPs than en-WP, and this subject is German.  Britishfinance (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are minor passing references not SIGCOV. You keep saying that "Anybody familar with de-WP knows that they have a much higher bar for BLPs than en-WP", if that is true why are there only 3 refs all in English on the deWP pages one of which is a blog? I would also note that the deWP page was created in September 2018 whereas the enWP page was created in August 2017. Mztourist (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you take a look at the German BLP of Herbert von Denffer? I notice that Brown University also have kept his works in their archive here'  and the Yale University liabrary here Britishfinance (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes of course I looked at the German page, that's how I knew that all 3 refs were in English and one is a blog. So 2 universities have a copy of a book by him, are you saying that is enough to satisfy WP:GNG? Mztourist (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I saw some mentions in Google Scholar, in particular one published by Taylor and Francis. The available sourcing is slim, but enough.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:13, 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).I can 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 ) 18:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted above he apparently didn't even have a military rank, he just "worked as a cryptanalyst in Referat F, the Mathematical Referat, as part of the Inspectorate 7/VI, that was the signals intelligence agency of the Wehrmacht, before and during World War II. He would later work for the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung, the successor organization to the In 7/VI, specifically undertaking research in general theory of cryptography." No RS has been provided that he was in charge of any unit so I don't believe that your comments about field versus operations officers is really relevant. Just working for a notable organization doesn't confer notability. In relation to your comments above that deWP "have in general higher standards for all biographies than we do, but that they have a better understanding of what makes a notable career in most fields" I think that faith is misplaced as I keep pointing out 1 of the 3 deWP refs is a blog. Mztourist (talk) 07:26, 19 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.