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. The arguments to delete are significantly more convincing than the arguments to keep. Even if the claims of Handke being "the most successful night fighter radar operator" were true, the arguments for passing WP:SOLDIER might still be dubious. However, with the uncertainty that those claims are even true (per Assayer's argument), the keep arguments crumble. I'd have nothing against merging some of the material from this article into Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer or other relevant articles. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 00:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Handke[edit]

Erich Handke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link; just passing mentions in the context of other crew members. Successful completion of missions ("flew 128 sorties as a radio operator") is not included in SOLDIER. Notability is not inherited from better known pilots.

No de.Wiki article. Per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. Subsequent to the discussion, the article was redirected. In this case, the redirect has been challenged, hence the AfD.

Please also see a recent AfD for an article where a redirect had been likewise challenged:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Franke (closed as "Delete")

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; definitely non-notable. Update: I've considered the new content/refs and don't see being a member of a successful crew as contributing to personal notability.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Aghast at the ignorance. The most successful night fighter operator of the war. Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (I would have voted delete, but for the last comment). I am dubious whether any radio operator should qualify as notable. He was not the pilot, only a member of the crew. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- the "keep" vote offers a personal opinion, but does not provide any sources to confirm subject's notability. In any case, "successful completion of missions" is not covered in SOLDIER. The same position was presented at Talk:Erich_Handke#Notability, and I believe that such opinions, not backed up by sources, should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony Coffmann. That is easily done. It is a fact, not an opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources on his part in the most successful night fighter team and highlighted the role of a radar operator in the success of the pilot. He supported the highest scoring night fighter pilot in history - Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer. Dapi89 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as notable, given the unique role played; otherwise, would not be notable. Delete. Note/update, per new information provided below: if Friedrich Rumpelhardt, was in fact "the most successful radar operator", with Schnaufer, then I must change my opinion on this stand alone article and state that Handke should be a mention in Schnaufer's article and the appropriate Luftwaffe article, instead. Kierzek (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- the sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone bio; the subject could be briefly mentioned in the Schnauffer article, as that's how he's covered. I don't see sources that establish independent notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The claim that Handke was the most successful night fighter operator of the war is unsupported by any sources. Not surprising, because literature has it, that Friedrich Rumpelhardt was the most successful radar operator — in terms of aerial victories claimed — in the Luftwaffe night fighter force. He was Schnaufer's regular crew member. According to Wikipedia's GA-Article Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer#Rumpelhardt_is_absent Schnaufer claimed just five aerial victories with Oberfeldwebel Erich Handke. Although I like the idea of successful teams instead of heroic aces, I do not believe that Schnaufer's notability extends to anybody who flew with him or supported him. --Assayer (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact his actual tally with Schnaufer could be as high as 20 (Mackay) and as the regular operator of Drewes (43) plus Kraft (14). And that he was part of the most successful night fighter team of all time is undisputed. Your opinion about the notability of radar operators is ill-considered. Without them, you have no night fighter aces. Dapi89 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Handke's "actual tally with Schnaufer" is questionable, ranging somewhere between five and 20 (which is a huge margin), how reliable are these statistics after all? The GA on Schnaufer recounts in minute detail with whom he scored how many aerial victories. So that information is unreliable? To my understanding a "night fighter team" (on a Bf 110) means three people: pilot, gunner, radio operator. Militaria literature has it that the most successful "night fighter team" of the Luftwaffe consisted of Schnaufer, Rumpelhardt and Wilhelm Gänsler (gunner). Handke was mainly with Drewes and Georg Petz. Isn't it that you argue that Handke is notable, simply because he flew with Schnaufer a few times?--Assayer (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just took notice that on 10 February 2017 Dapi89 stated about Friedrich Rumpelhardt Most successful radar operator in the Luftwaffe, part of the most successful night-fighting team in air warfare. On 9 April 2017 he stated about Erich Handke The most successful night fighter operator of the war. How many "most successful radar operators of the war" do actually exist? --Assayer (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about side-stepping the issue.

Who says they are questionable? Sources differ, that is the nature of history - particularly in figures. That doesn't make them all unreliable because they conflict. Given it is figures we are talking about, 5 to 20 it is not a huge margin, by any stretch of the imagination.

He was part of the most successful night fighter team: fact. He was arguably the most successful operator of the war, certainly one of two: fact. Drewes (43), Kraft (14) and Schnaufer (5-20) still qualifies him as part of the most successful night fighter team and the reason 62-77 bombers were shot down.

Radio operators were the critical factor in the success of a night fighter pilot: fact. In that regard there is every reason to mention them, particularly this one. Dapi89 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? This is not about overclaiming. These numbers are based upon the official numbers given by the Luftwaffe. These do not range "somewhere between five and 20". We are talking about night fighters. Many German night fighter aces did not reach a tally as high as 15. It is more likely that either Schumann or Mackay has made a mistake. Furthermore, Drewes did not score all of his kills with Handke as radio operator. And, no, Handke was not arguably the most successful operator of the war, certainly one of the two. Walter Kubisch, for example, was with Helmut Lent in 80 of Lent's 102 night fighter victories. Noone objects mentioning radio operators. The point is: For whom independent notability can be established. It cannot for Handke.--Assayer (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, what am I talking about? Who mentioned anything about over claiming? And so what if they are official figures? I don't see nearly the same level of vitriol or criticism leveled at Allied aces. And we're not talking about the many, but a select few. Around 20 achieved 50. That is a large number. But what is your point? The context of night fighting from the German perspective, was a long campaign in a target-rich environment. Expert crews were used to death; literally. In many cases, hand-picked for continuous operations. The number of victories claimed to missions flown are remarkably similar. 15 victories isn't that many, and shows a gratuitous lack of understanding of the bigger picture. Drewes claimed "most" of his victories with Handke, in that sense the sources do agree, so we relegate your assertions to opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Night fighter combat claims have been recorded and confirmed by the Luftwaffe and its Abschusskommissionen. Their numbers do not range somewhere between X and Y by a margin of roughly 20%. Otherwise it would not be possible to put together almost complete statistics, e.g. with whom Schnaufer flew for all of his aerial victories claimed.

You started out by calling Handke "the most successful night fighter operator of the war", which, as you already knew very well back then, isn't true; you then declared him "part of the most successful night fighter team of all time", which isn't true either. And you claimed he was "one of two" most successful operators. Which is also not true, even if we choose to ignore, that by definition it is impossible to have two most successful operators. I am not talking about the exingencies of night fighting from the perspective of the Luftwaffe. Neither did I introduce extraordinary claims to establish individual notability. If you feel that radio operators of German night fighter "aces" deserve their own articles, please proceed to seek support for that in the community. --Assayer (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Given two of the pilots he flew with have their own articles as aces, I think it's only fair that he also has an article since his role was vital to their victories. This is not like a bomber crew; this is two men in a plane. To only credit the pilot with the victories is unfair to say the least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I don't believe the above to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion (it's only fair that he also has an article...; it's unfair [to only credit the pilot]), and should be discounted. No sources have been presented; and notability is not inherited from better known pilots. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's called an opinion! See below for further explanation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The claims of Handke's uniqueness have been disproved one by one. I fail to see how that can be done more throughly. It is furthermore misleading to suggest that pilots have their own "articles as aces". There is no such provision in any notability guideline, and Wikipedia is not about crediting otherwise unknown radio operators with victories.--Assayer (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a longstanding consensus that aces have their own articles. See Category:German World War II flying aces. Most of them wouldn't have articles if they weren't aces. The same goes for most other aces. In fact, a fair number of AfDs have been defeated for the simple fact that the individual was an ace and therefore deserves an article. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it seems odd to dismiss this individual just because he wasn't a pilot whereas if he was a pilot his article would almost certainly not be deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind linking a few of these AfDs? To my understanding Wikipedia features such articles, because the Knight's Cross was once indiscriminately considered to be the highest military award of Nazi Germany. Since many Nazi German "aces" were also recipients of the Knight's Cross, they thus met one of the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. As has been pointed out by the nominator above, however, that procedure has been discussed and subsequently modified. It is also worth noting, that the number of aerial victories required to officially qualify as an "ace" is usually considered to be five or more, whereas at some point during the war it took 20 up to 30 aerial victories to qualify for a Knight's Cross. If any "ace" would have his own article, the standard would thus be considerably lower for fighter pilots than for any other soldier.--Assayer (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just mean German aces. See, for instance, Category:British World War I flying aces. Most only have an article because they were aces. A number have been AfDed and kept for this reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The community has recently done away with "Panzer aces" and "submarine aces" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace). Is it being suggested that "Radar operator aces exist? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has done away with these because they are subjective. However, air aces are not subjective. The total of five kills to qualify as an ace is long established. This is an unusual case as most air aces are pilots. However, in a night fighter the radar operator was just as vital to the victory as the pilot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Air aces" are just as subjective as any other military "aces". The whole concept of "ace" originated with French WW I propaganda and was unknown in Germany during WW I and WW II. I would still be interested in links to those AfDs.--Assayer (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The criterion of "Successful completion of missions" (i.e. sorties completed, enemy airplanes shot down, tank "kills", etc) is not part of WP:SOLDIER. So the assertion that every ace deserves an article does not match MilHist project's own guidance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not. However, as I've already said, it has long been accepted. As I have also said, I don't necessarily agree with it, but if we're going to keep articles on pilots just because they were aces (and we most certainly have done), why are we deleting articles on other aircrew who also qualify? That seems subjective, weird and discriminatory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have opened an RfC on this issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC on the notability of flying aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Possibly top-scoring Weapon systems officer of all times - 178 kills. WSO with high double digit kill count. Participating in such a kill count meets SOLDIER(4) - and is equivalent to taking out a Aviation Division single-handedly (ok - with WSO - two-handedly) - destorying a division clearly meets SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign;".Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC) realized kill count misstated, but still extremely high.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note In the modern jet area WSOs are credited with kills. Most of the us vietnam aces were WSOs, with entries on wiki, with significantly less kills than Handke. In wwii treatment of radio or radar operators was as crew, but postnwar modern treatment isn't as such. Also note night fighter kills were harder to come by, and bombers were valuable multi crew targets, making the kill count here even more significant.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And WWI WSO-like observers with 5 kills have entries, eg Johann Lasi.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Being an ace alone is enough, IMO. And "no German WP page" is a non-starter; there are dozens of U.S. hot rodders deserving of a page here who don't have one, either... And teamwork in NF ops is key; any "RIO" of WW2 who aided in more than a couple of kills is notable, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the above comment is akin to WP:ILIKEIT and is not based in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Being an "ace" may get you on a list, but if there are insufficient sources to write a balanced biography, such article should be deleted or redirected to a list. In short, the arguments "ace" = Keep should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as non-notable. I went line by line through WP:SOLDIER, the article does not meet criteria. Ifnord (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.