Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Diedericks


 * 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. Keep rationales was mostly weak and doesn't address the fact he fails WP:GNG Secret account 04:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

André Diedericks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, the only source used is the man's autobiography. Also falls short of WP:SOLDIER due to rank and highest valour award being third level. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Strongly diasagree! Does Peacemaker67 know ANYTHING about the subject matter whatsoever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.156.107 (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree - Thousands of veterans knew this legend of a man. He was a hero in all respects, and I seriously question the motivations of the one who proposed deletion. Why can this not be a stub asking for further citation, as I have seen on many many other WP pages? .. Lt. Sorrel Jakins 66414111BT South African Artillery Sorreljakins (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — Sorreljakins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * On what basis would you be questioning my motivation, chief? You might like to try to assume good faith, given your account was apparently created purely to defend this article. Earlier, some IP troll suggested I was a "chef", which obviously would automatically mean I wouldn't have any respect for a special forces officer, and would seek to delete any article's about "real" warriors... FFS. I nominate articles for deletion on a regular basis when I am doing initial assessments of Milhist articles, usually shortly after they are created. On the basis of WP policy and Milhist guidelines, and certainly never because I "knew" somebody (or not). An apology is in order. For other editors, WP:NOTMEMORIAL may be relevant here as well as GNG (which requires "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, not a mention of the fellow's name here or there) and SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree - Obviously I disagree as I created the article. I would suggest that the combination of the TWO valour awards should carry some weight. Also, the contribution of the man himself to the development of Small Team tactics is a unique one and makes him notable in it's own right. The secretive nature of the tasks that he was involved with means that there are VERY FEW sources of information. His biography is in fact widely referenced here on Wikipedia as a reliable source for a variety of things, so I don't see why it cannot count as such for an article on the man himself? BoonDock (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two points
 * The book itself has been endorsed by the Special Forces Brigade, who don't do things like that lightly. It has also been checked for factual accuracy by Defence Intelligence. Many of the people mentioned in the book have read it and confirmed it's accuracy. I know that doesn't meet the criteria of being mentioned in newspaper articles or other sources,  but that shouldn't reduce the authority of the book itself as a reference.
 * The theoretical higher awards were either never awarded. HCD for example. In reality, the HCS was the highest award at the time especially considering that the HC had just been restructured and the criteria for the award level hadn't been cast in stone. BoonDock (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The requirements to meet notability include that the sources are independent of the subject. Neither the Brigade nor Defence Intelligence would count as independent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, considering that they are SANDF and Diedies was SADF they could be considered as independent. BoonDock (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the same manner as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The SANDF is made up of nine former entities, seven of them former statutary defence forces and two former so-called freedom fighter terrorist organisations. There is no comparison. Not anywhere, ever. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. We're supposed to take his autobiography as an unbiased source? His deeds are so secret they aren't mentioned in the press? Seriously? As for his award being the highest actually bestowed, then how come Honoris Crux Gold lists people with awards in the same time period ('70s and '80s)? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you know anything about the topic then you must know that there was nothing in the press about Special Forces operations. Now thirty years and more later the information is slowly becoming available.  I have copies if the citations for the HCS and HC but I was concerned that would be considered own research.  He is mentioned in the Uys book which I will cite once I locate my  copy as well as in two others. I'll update the references with those later. BoonDock (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, Clarityfiend, seriously! The Honoris Crux, on any level, was not awarded lightly and as an ex SAAF officer with nearly 33 years service, I am personally aware of several members who should have received the HC, HCS, HCG or even HCD but never did because their commanders never bothered to submit a citation - they were soldiers, not writers. Those who were awarded any of the HC or other decorations for valour twice are rare and are all notable as far as I'm concerned. In fact, as far as I know there were only three such double awards in a bush war that lasted 23 years: Arthur Walker HCG and Bar, André Diedericks HCS HC, and J.L. Conradie HC VRM. And yes, the press were not made aware of all actions, most especially not those of the Special Forces and most definitely not about the small team operators. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 16:07k, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Keep" reference to this insident/topic also on web www.warinangola.com and insident described in a book called "point of the dagger" written by Peet Coetzee
 * I fail to see how or why warinangola.com would be a reliable source. It looks more like a "fanboi" website. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. No significant coverages to reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep With only a web search as my research I found only a few sources that weren't forums or book sellers: 1. Two academics who were also both in the military (one retired as a Brigadier General) call Andre Diedericks' autobiography "an important primary source on Special Forces history by a leading participant". 2. In this academic article (in the Afrikaans language which I only understand a bit) Andre Diedericks is mentioned twice, even though the article states that it focusses on books by others. 3. In "BOSBEFOK: Constructed Images and the Memory of the South African Border War" by C M W Doherty, a thesis on literature, Diedericks' autobiography is mentioned as a typical example of "heroic first-person accounts produced by members of units such as Reconnaissance Commando and 32 Battalion" ... "by men who were regarded superhuman warriors at that time." 4. Diedericks apparently also figures as a character in the book "Point of the Dagger" by Peet Coetzee and 5. he is also named in passing in the book "Borderstrike!: South Africa Into Angola 1975-1980" by Willem Steenkamp. - Takeaway (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Taking your ignorance about Andre into perspective it can be seen why you don't quiet grasp the magnitude of what the man achieved in his career. His two medals for bravery the HC, and HCS says a lot only a couple of HCG where ever awarded and no HCD where awarded.

Then his SM and MMM speak of the work ethics of the man. So fo the idiots who say he does not meet any requirements climb back in you box keep quiet and when you know the facts about what he did and achieved come deliver comments again. Yes no one knew of Special Forces Operations because that is what they are, only the Americans publish their Seal results and make films to justify the military presence in countries. You don't hear about the SAS or our Special Forces doing anything because we can keep quiet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew van Vuuren (talk • contribs) 05:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)  — Andrew van Vuuren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You just don't get it. To qualify as a bio in Wikipedia, his accomplishments have to be verifiable by reliable sources, per WP:GNG. According to you, they're all so secret, they can't be. And while you're at it, try reading WP:CIVIL. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above newly registered editor (Andrew van Vuuren) is the second to appear here whose only edits are on this page. Smells like WP:MEAT to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Have brought my concerns to Boondock's attention. Hopefully it, and the incivility here and on my talk page, will cease. Let's see. I'd advise the closing admin to ignore the IPs and the two new accounts. Not that this is a vote, of course. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The odour of the WP:MEAT is too obvious to ignore. What do you suggest? Wikicology (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your concern is noted. I did no recruiting but solicited assistance in finding references that would help to establish notability in a FB forum. That this has had the unintended effect of bringing people here who might not otherwise have come, is unfortunate, but not my fault. BoonDock (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we might be losing focus a bit here. The article was nominated for deletion based on a number of factors. One of those was the references. I think we have established that there are more references than were initially in the article. What else? BoonDock (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You call that "losing focus", do you, pal? What it is, is meatpuppetry, and frankly, it's transparent, and you are sailing pretty close to the wind. Put your feral mates on a leash. But let's put that to one side for now, shall we, because I don't think I'll be getting an apology for their ignorant behaviour. What GNG requires is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is what the issue with this article was, and is, as far as I am concerned. I haven't seen anyone claiming significant coverage except in his autobiography (and that obviously isn't independent of the subject, apparently it is a "heroic first-person account"). Where is there significant coverage of this fellow? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe that he does meet WP:SOLDIER by virtue of his medals. For some reason our Defence Force split our highest bravery award into 4. (Ignoring the Castle of Good Hope and the HCD which was never awarded) the HCG was the highest awarded and only to a handful. The HCS was thus the second level. He also won the HC - quite an achievement. I will add ref's to the book that lists his medal achievements Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not buying into the special-interest pleading about the way the SADF honours system was constructed or operated. Apply that to the Australian situation between 1969 and 1996, and you'd be telling me that the Medal for Gallantry awarded to SASR WO2 Rodrick Scott was actually the highest honour because no-one had ever been awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia or Star of Gallantry at that time. Of course, since that time, there have been seven CGs and three VCs awarded. Even if your characterisation of the medals was right, SOLDIER says multiple awards of the second highest, doesn't it? The way I'm reading it (if we take what you say as valid) he got one of the second highest, plus one of the next one down. That doesn't meet SOLDIER, so I'm not sure how you're putting that together. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are no less than 4 books that detail that he won the medal and his actions. Surely that means he passes GNG at the very least. I make no special interest pleadings - just stating it as I see it. Gbawden (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Diedericks as an author also mentioned in Beyond the border war: new perspective on Southern Africa's Late Cold War Conflicts by Baines & Vale. (see online excerpt)
 * I'd describe that as mentioned in a review of Beyond the border war: new perspective on Southern Africa's Late Cold War Conflicts. It does say "[referring to categories of published works] Contributions related to specialist forces and elite units...In this regard authors such as Els, Botha and Diedericks and Korff catch the eye. The majority of the latter works dealt to a lesser extent with politics and focused more on the experience of the participants, tactics, units and people involved. Most of these contributions are valuable historical sources" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Week Keep. I think the combination of his coverage in the sources, his decorations and his senior rank within special forces (although neither of the latter two on their own meet WP:SOLDIER) do just about (and it's still very close) scrape him past the notability bar. However, I would like to add that the attacks on the nominator for what was a perfectly sensible nomination at the time it was made have been unacceptable. It is also inaccurate to suggest that because the HC is split into four grades all those grades constitute the highest level. Rubbish. The Order of the British Empire is split into six grades, yet we only consider the top three to confer inherent notability. Same with the French Légion d'honneur. Different grades of a multi-grade honour are effectively different awards. There should be no special pleading for countries that choose to have a split award instead of separate awards, nor for countries that choose not to award their top awards, as long as those awards exist on paper. Even discounting the latter (and there's no real reason why we should), Diedericks effectively held a second-level and a third-level bravery award, which is not generally sufficient for notability under WP:SOLDIER (there are thousands of British (and WWI and WWII South African!) servicemen, for instance, with the DSO and MC, DCM and MM etc who do not and should not have articles). He also held two merit decorations which appear to be pretty far down the list. As I said, it's a very weak keep! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm familiar with the reputation of Andre Diedericks, but admittedly that's due to my sojourn in South Africa and increasing contact with the military veterans or researchers there. I don't think the medals/service record by themselves make him notable - it's how he obtained them via exceptional ops which obviously causes many vets to hold him in high regard (the 1985 Aeroflot Antonov An-12 shoot-down, for instance). The claim that he pioneered small team maneuvers in Angola, an integral part of South African special forces doctrine then and even now, also needs expansion to provide further proof of notability. --Katangais (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Slow down
This article is a stub that is, today, only nine days old. There are articles on Wikipedia that have been in existence as unreferenced one-liners for years, undisturbed. The fervour with which this deletion campaign has been waged in these nine days is rather astonishing and is creating the impression of an undisclosed agenda. Please slow down and give the article creator and other contributors some breathing space to expand on the article and include more flesh and additional references - it is out there and will be found. Being blinded by guidelines and treating them as rules cast in concrete is, in the SADF vernacular, being gatvas and, without exception, counter-productive. Stop doing that and give the contributors time to complete the article. There's no rush, is there? -- André Kritzinger (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Andre, with respect, you haven't been on the receiving end of this. I've never got this sort of response in dozens of AfD nominations of Milhist articles. My track record shows I'm always happy to have a sensible discussion about deletion, admit when I'm wrong, and probably support keeping as many as I don't. The ferocity of the response to the AfD is what looks like a hidden agenda, not the AfD itself. The number of South Africans baring their teeth in defence of their comrade isn't a good look either, especially with the meatpuppetry, incivility and personal attacks. Strangely enough, I don't like getting attacked for trying to guide inclusion/exclusion of articles. We can't have articles on everyone who writes a book about himself and got a gong, however much some SADF people might idolise him. I haven't seen enough yet to show he meets GNG, so I'm not withdrawing the nomination. If enough appears, I will. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are now 4 published books cited in the article - Die Roem en Die Rou, Cross of Honour, Border Strike and We fear naught from above. The first three have been around for years (Border Strike since 1983). I believe that these books show GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. First let me remind interested editors in the subject of this article of WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA. Please do not make comments about fellow editors, and assume good faith. Attacking fellow editors does nothing to advance the shared purpose of improving this project/Wikipedia. That being said, I have not come across any significant coverage of the subject in tertiary sources provided in the article (which as mentioned above has been edited multiple times since this AfD began), to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG. As mentioned by other editors, since the highest medal for valour in South Africa during the subjects service period was divided into multiple grades, and as the subject was never awarded the highest of those grades, or the second highest of those grades multiple times, medals alone are insufficient for the subject to pass notability per WP:SOLDIER. Now the only reason why I am not saying strait delete, but weak delete, is because of the non-english language tertiary sources that might exist that give significant coverage of the subject. However, as I have not seen any presented that are readily available to other editors, I cannot support keeping this article at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'delete the principle here is NOT MEMORIAL. The autobio is found in only 7 worldcat libraries, so it is not evidence of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is an element of WP:BIAS here. I have seen Majors and Lt Col's going to AfD only to be kept because they have an obit in the Daily Telegraph. Gbawden (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (jive)  @ 19:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Whether this should be delete or weak delete isn't that important; the reasoning is the key. It's always hard when dealing with someone who was heroic, or achieved great things -- but to be blunt about, that has no direct impact on whether the person will be included in Wikipedia. I tend to agree with . First, looking at general guidelines, I don't see independent, in-depth coverage. With respect to WP:SOLDIER, it may be unfortunate his country chose not to award him the highest award, but that's what happened. Could there be sources not in English? Possibly, be we need some proof. I've spent a little time searching, but without success. Lacking that proof, the article should be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2014 (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.