Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Auld (pilot)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Andy Auld (pilot)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Does not meet criteria for military officers. DSC is not a highest level award.  DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This was tagged for A7 speedy, but I declined it; after all, the most successful British fighter pilot in the Falklands War is important, and the article shouldn't be deleted without a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom/WP:SOLDIER. A single obituary in The Telegraph and in no other newspaper indicates a lack of WP:GNG. Perhaps something could be merged into Falklands War somewhere and this redirected there. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled. That's not his obit. He's presumably still alive. Although an obit in a major newspaper generally would be enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Old age seems to be creeping up on me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER.Now there are several pilots who fought for Britian in wars not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have cleaned up the article a bit, and formatted the references. (More work is needed but WP:NOTCLEANUP) This is a notable pilot who appears in books and has is published in major news media. He was a Commander which is not the highest to qualify him automatically for WP:SOLDIER, However meets WP:GNG per WP:RS and passes WP:ANYBIO... he received the Distinguished service cross (only 6,658 have received). I will continue to do clean up, but I think we should explore WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE. Let us look for alternatives to deletion per Nyttend: ...the most successful British fighter pilot in the Falklands War should not be deleted. Wm335td (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please quote the whole phrase: should not be deleted without a discussion. In other words, if the article be deleted, it should be the result of an AFD.  I don't have an opinion on keeping or deleting.  Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nyttend My apologies for the misquote. Thank you for pointing it out. Wm335td (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge to 800 Naval Air Squadron Delete see below x2 ...sadly. I could only find passing mentions of him and I am afraid the artilce is misleading because it was the aircraft that is mentioned as being the most successful and not the pilot. The most successful pilot according to this source was Flt Lt David Morgan with 3 solo victories and 1 shared victory. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This source clears up the question as the aircraft was flown by Auld and another pilot, Clive Morrell . --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dom from Paris Thank you for the additional verification. I continue to advocate for a Keep. I think we have enough WP:RS for the person and a cumulative effect of mentions to pass GNG. The person has a mention on the 800 Naval Air Squadron WP page. In addition there are many books
 * The British Carrier Strike Fleet: After 1945
 * Jet Wars in the Nuclear Age: 1972 to the Present Day
 * RAF Harrier Ground Attack: Falklands
 * And many more...Pacific Defence Reporter, Carrier Warfare, Operation Corporate: the Falklands War, 1982, Task Force: The Illustrated History of the Falklands War, Warbirds of the Sea: A History of Aircraft Carriers & Carrier-based Aircraft..and many more. Our readers should be able to find an entry for a pilot who has so many mentions in books, and reliable sources. Sorry for the long response. Wm335td (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly these all seem to be passing mentions. That said I am changing my !vote to merge as his name could be a redirect to the squadron page and we could merge the information into the Falklands section. I am very surprised to see that David Morgan doesn't have a page though. There is a great deal more information about him and if no-one beats me to it I shall create a page for him tomorrow. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It is true that several relatively weak references in the same area can combine to product evidence for notability is some cases, but these sorts of mentions are not even weak, they're totally useless. I don't even support a redirect, unless we make one to their unit for every recipient of the DSC ever. But we're not a directory. There's also a possibility of making a list of all the commanders of the squadron, but since it changes ever year or two, I'm not sure it would be helpful.Again, not directory. Anyone mentioned in a WP article like the one on the squadron) can be searched for in a WP, so there's no real point in a redirect for those not otherwise notable  DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to mention that the DSC is 4th highest military award in the face of the enemy, the order being
 * Victoria Cross
 * Distinguished Service Order
 * Conspicuous Gallantry Cross
 * Distinguished Service Cross
 * Military Cross
 * Distinguished Flying Cross etc etc
 * It has been awarded 6680 times but only 136 times since 1947. I doubt very much that the list would be very long for each unit (it is an all arms medal). --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Our standard practice seems to be to accept as notability a single award at the highest level only, and also 2 more more awards at the 2nd level. Below that doesn't ordinarily count as notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Much as it pains me, does not meet notability criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I've improved sourcing. Now meets WP:GNG. See WP:Before and WP:NEXIST. 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again User:7&amp;6=thirteen please avoid the WP:ADHOM WP:BEFORE accusations that you seem to make at almost every AFD. It is tiresome and discouraged. Could you please state which sources you have added are in-depth coverage. The Aces high source was one I noted here myself and it is not indepth at all, the Rolling Thunder source says he led an attack but mentions him no further, the aviation geek club is even shorter. IMHO none of these or the previous ones are close to being in-depth coverage. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly does meet the criteria in that, "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" (criterion #4). There is no need to satisfy all the criteria hence tne "or"s that everyone seems to be missing.--Ykraps (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that downing 2 aircraft is not what I would call an "important role". If this were the case then we would find in-depth coverage in reliable sources of the person and his important role. This just isn't the case. I scoured the internet in the hope of finding that overage and it just isn't there I'm sad to say. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's rather subjective isn't it? The Falklands War was a small and short-lived conflict. One can't expect millions to die. As I understand it, the pilot with the most kills only downed one more aircraft than Auld. And although killing people is important, it is not the only way one can make an important contribution in a war. Auld was commander of a squadron who flew 62 missions (according to the article).--Ykraps (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point! It is 100% subjective, as is your opinion, but we are writing an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and not on our own opinions. So whether you or I think it was an important role or not makes no difference whatsoever because that is WP:OR. What we need is for others to say that or something similar about him in reliable sources to be able to apply that criterion. I have no idea whether 62 missions is a lot in a 10 week conflict or not. I have read in a DCS citation that they flew up to 4 missions a day so is it a lot compared to other pilots? Was his role any more important than the other pilots? Dom from Paris (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He made an impact by shooting down two enemy aircraft. Coupled with his general notability (coverage in multiple reliable sources), I would say, that is enough. As I said, this was a small conflict in which some personnel never even discharged their weapon and I think Auld's actions need to be seen comparatively.--Ykraps (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You sum up my comment perfectly when you write "I would say that is enough" when you talk about his actions but not the sources. Notability is not judged on our personal opinions but on the sources and no reliable independent sources state or suggest that they agree with your analysis of his importance. Just to be clear I personally would love to see articles on every serviceman that showed courage and won gongs. I served with some, including Falklands veterans. Friends of mine were killed and wounded on active service. It galls me that some notabilty criteria are so low, notably sports, that you need no in depth coverage to guarantee a place. For example take a look at WP:NFOOTY or WP:GRIDIRON. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we can agree on that at least. Personally, I don't see why the bar should be set any higher. Time to IAR before we end up with an encyclopaedia full of porn stars, video games and people who once scored a touchdown for their college team.--Ykraps (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - "The aircraft XZ457 shot down most enemy aircraft in the Falklands War - three downed aircraft, and one damaged", doesn't mean he is a fighter ace, just that an aircraft he sometimes flew was. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody said he was an "ace". although Andy Auld destroyed one in the ground and two in the air. The aircraft shot down two Argentine fighters. albeit in the hands of two different pilots. In any event, you misread the sources, and conflated three separate facts. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually you're incorrect, Nyytend did say in their edit comment ...especially as it sounds like he was an air ace (three kills with his aircraft, and two with some other sort of missile and I think you are mistaken as well about how many aircraft Auld actually claimed because the aircraft destroyed on the ground was hit by the other pilot Morrell according to this source . So the aircraft had 3 fighters shot down and not 2 as you say plus the aircraft destroyed on the ground. You may have misread the sources too. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In my business, I am final. As Justice Jackson wrote of the United States Supreme Court, "We are not final because we are infallible; we are installible because we are final."  Nevertheless, I could be mistaken; and this isn't my "business."
 * Per your source: Sea Harrier XZ457 "On May 24th, Lieutenant-Commander Andy Auld shot down two Grupo 6 Daggers with Sidewinders over Pebble Island." The aircraft apparently shot down more, per that source.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is correct. Though you said The aircraft shot down two Argentine fighters. albeit in the hands of two different pilots. but if Auld shot down 2 with it what did the other pilot shoot down? I think you meant to say 3 Argentine fighters, albeit in the hands of two different pilots but that was probably just a typing error as was installible and BTW you actually misquoted Jackson in reality he wrote "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." (my bolding of the words 'but' and 'only' that have all their importance in the phrase I believe.) Wonderful phrase and so simple and understandable, probably because he didn't have a law degree! But all of that is neither here nor there because what is really missing here is in-depth coverage. --Dom from Paris (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is correct. Though you said The aircraft shot down two Argentine fighters. albeit in the hands of two different pilots. but if Auld shot down 2 with it what did the other pilot shoot down? I think you meant to say 3 Argentine fighters, albeit in the hands of two different pilots but that was probably just a typing error as was installible and BTW you actually misquoted Jackson in reality he wrote "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." (my bolding of the words 'but' and 'only' that have all their importance in the phrase I believe.) Wonderful phrase and so simple and understandable, probably because he didn't have a law degree! But all of that is neither here nor there because what is really missing here is in-depth coverage. --Dom from Paris (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. "He was an important part of making the Sea Harrier operational in the Royal Navy, and was a driver of its success in the Falklands War." --> Well that sounds interesting, but the article doesn't back up this wild claim in the lede at all.  Lots of people win awards.  If somehow Auld drove the British Navy success in the Falklands War, we're going to need much better sourcing.  SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment as an aside I have created the page for David Morgan (pilot) as promised, if anyone would care to improve or add to it. --Dom from Paris (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sole item of notability isn't even adequately sourced, namely his supposed role with regards to the Sea Harrier's success - and beyond doing his job, that seems like a dubious claim.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't make you read the sources. But Ipse dixit won't do.  Gathering of Eagles Foundation One of the cited sources includes the following:

Upon graduation, he again returned to 893 Squadron–this time as Executive Officer. Sent to the Directorate of Naval Air Warfare in the Ministry of Defense (MOD) in 1979, he served as the desk officer responsible for overseeing the debut of the Sea Harrier into operational service and the creation of 800 Squadron, the first frontline unit. Auld took command of the 800 Squadron in January 1982, not knowing that a few short months later he’d lead his unit in combat. At 0400 hours on 2 April 1982, Auld was told to bring his squadron to immediate readiness to embark on HMS Hermes. Instead of starting Easter leave that day, he and his squadron began the 8,000 mile voyage to the South Atlantic. Over the next 2 1/2 months, Sea Harriers from HMS Hermes flew 1,126 sorties and scored 16 aerial victories. Auld flew 62 combat missions and downed two Argentine Daggers.

Along with air defense of the Task Force, 800 Squadron proved equally adept in bombing and ground attack. Under his leadership, 800 Squadron’s combat performance proved the value of the Sea Harrier and led to new procurement and modernization programs. Following the Falklands campaign, Auld was posted to Antisubmarine Warfare Striking Forces Atlantic as the Staff Aviation Officer. In 1984, he moved to Norway in the Plans and Policy Division of Allied Forces Northern Europe. Returning to the MOD’s Directorate of Naval Air Warfare in 1987, Auld developed policies and tactics to improve the effectiveness of the Sea Harrier.
 * Oh well. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge Notable pre internet War hero: he commanded the 800 NAS Harrier group during the Falklands War and of the 13 enemy planes shot down by Harriers he is responsible for 15%. As Ykraps has stated, the subject passes WP:SOLDIER "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" (criterion #4). In depth coverage regarding pre-internet subjects is a troubling theme in AfD. Fact: The Falklands War is rarely mentioned without mentioning Andy Auld. Soldiers are known for their soldiering and this soldier's name appears in multiple books, news articles, and on our own Wikipedia coverage. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD. Andy Auld was a war hero who retired to private life without fanfare, and without getting into news worthy trouble. My thoughts are also that this person passes number 1 and number 2 of WP:ANYBIO for his Distinguished service cross and major contribution in the Falklands War: 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * just for the sake of accuracy, I feel obliged to point out that the Internet was developed in the 1970s, whereas Auld is known for his actions in the 1980s. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The ARPANET was created in the 1960s and 1970s. The Internet wasn't split off it until 1983.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge with redirect to 800 Naval Air Squadron – Coverage of him is brief; the sources don't even seem to come close to WP:SIGCOV. If he really was important (WP:SOLDIER #4), we would have found biographies of him already written. Wikipedia should never be the first to publish someone's biography. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote from delete to merge. I am not convinced that this article subject meets GNG–there is, so far, one in-depth source of questionable reliability–but Auld was the commander of the unit during an important period, and there is certainly something we can say about him. That something, though, should be said at the 800 Naval Air Squadron page rather than in a stand-alone page. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep "Under his leadership, 800 Squadron’s combat performance proved the value of the Sea Harrier and led to new procurement and modernization programs".  "Auld developed policies and tactics to improve the effectiveness of the Sea Harrier."  So he made a notable impact in his field.   D r e a m Focus  02:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't accept "Under the leadership of..." as significant for anyone in any field of activity. It's the routine pseudo-tribute to an executive, taking the praise for everything done by anyone in their unit. In business or in war, an executive deserves honor for the actual decisions they personally make, not for the decisions or work done by other people. It's not even that the executive personally hired the people who did the noteworthy work, or personally trained them, or even personally planned the work, or necessarily did anything more than happened to be there at the time.  (This might even be particularly true in fields where the commanders of units regularly rotate, in contrast to those where the senior executive stay as the chief for decades, and where they could possibly be rationally assigned credit for the major long range planning and senior appointments.  Serious studies of leadership tries to separate out the actual contributions of the various parties. It's the difference between FDR & Churchill having the credit (or blame, sometimes) for the actual strategic decisions they made, vs. Stalin taking praise for everything that was successful during his regime while putting the blame for the failures on others.  Under the leadership of" is not only  an empty phrase, but implies there was nothing specific.
 * We have learned to recognize and ignore PR-speech in general; it's at its worst in strongly hierarchical organizations. " DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The case for meeting WP:SOLDIER is unconvincing if it is even verifiable. The case for meeting the general notability guideline is non-existent, because none of the sources amount to significant coverage. That leaves us with a clear result: delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources.  See evaluation:
 * 1) Reliable, but mentions him in passing only.
 * 2) What in the world makes anyone think this is a reliable source? Not scholarly, not a specialist publisher or well-reputed author in the field, and not reviewed by either.  See .  This shouldn't be used at all.
 * 3) Per page 5: "Now to the story I want to tell. I tell it as I saw it."  This is just a primary source; WP:BLPPRIMARY.
 * 4) It's a charity, not a reliable publisher.
 * 5) Reliable publisher, but unless my Google Books search hid some results, this has only a passing reference.
 * 6) Simon and Schuster is routinely not a reliable source — they're mostly just popular content written by nice people, and while that's perfectly fine, it's not reliable unless the author has better qualifications. Also, just a passing reference.
 * 7) Maybe reliable, but I'd need a lot of convincing, and anyway it's a passing reference like #1.
 * 8) Passing reference, and shouldn't be used; it's just a group of volunteers who maintain an aircraft museum.
 * 9) Can't evaluate reliability, but there's only a passing reference to Auld.
 * 10) A blog. See WP:ELNO; this shouldn't even appear in external links, let alone be cited.
 * 11) Same as #8
 * 12) Reliable, but mentions him in passing only.
 * Numbering reflects the order in this revision. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gathering of Eagles Foundation is reliable. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Boscombe Down Aviation Collection—Old Sarum Airfield| is reliable. And you have evidently ignored the six books gthat refer to him.  Not to mention the articles.   You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would call this a passing mention.[] I would say that separate mentions on four pages,[] three pages,[] and four pages,[] significant. However, there does appear to be a difference between the British and the American definition of 'significant'.[] --Ykraps (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes those organisations reliable? If you cited these in an academic work (even an undergraduate paper), your professor would be highly unlikely to accept sources that are written by volunteers without qualifications and that are not reviewed by scholars in the field.  And which six books have I ignored?  The second book is citation #5, the third is citation #6, the fourth is citation #4, and the fifth is citation #3.  The first book isn't cited, so I overlooked it (my response: the author of the article had it but never cited it: why should I believe that it provides significant coverage of Auld?), but your claim that I failed to address six books is severely in error, as are your evidence-free claims about the reliability of citations #2, #8, and #11.  Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:BASIC per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based largely on improvements and expansions made to the article since it was nominated for deletion. The best proof of notability is the many references to his name in published scholarship on air operations in the Falklands War, such as Christopher Shores' book. It at least reaches the general notability standard, with enough information to produce a Wikipedia article of more than respectable depth.Worldlywise (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many references? Shores' book mentions his name exactly twice: once in a table of pilots with aerial victories and once in a list of pilots who were awarded DSCs.  Neither of those provides significant coverage in the sense marked as American by this dictionary, and their "having a special meaning" sample sentences indicate that this sense isn't relevant to notability.  Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:Hey, WP:NEXIST.  Article's sources demonstrate it should NOW be kept.  Q.E.D. WP:Before was honored more in the breach than in the observance.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I still don't agree I have worked on the article but there is still no in depth coverage from reliable sources. The gathering of eagles source which is the only one that goes into any depth and it has a mission that is "Honoring airpower heritage to inspire military and community leaders of the future". We have no idea who wrote the page for Auld or if there was any kind of editorial oversight or what sources they used. If we dismiss this source there is no in depth coverage of the subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I expected you to ignore the 5 books and the London Gazette. Your response renews my faith in my foresight.  We will have to agree to disagree.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The London gazette is a primary source, (I myself am in there multiple times but don't think I am notable!) and the books are passing mentions which is why I stated "no in depth coverage from reliable sources" I could have added "secondary" but I didn't think it was necessary because GNG states "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.. My mistake I should try to be clearer in the future. But as you said we shall have to agree to disagree. --Dom from Paris (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of agreeing to disagree: it's one editor who sees two others reviewing sources and says "You ignored the sources". Someone who so grossly distorts the truth has no business participating in an AFD.  Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And would you please stop the exhausting editwarring on the page. The phrase in the lede that says "He played an important role in making the Sea Harrier operational in the Royal Navy, and was instrumental in its success in the Falklands War" is a blatant WP:SYNTH of the GEO source. I have already marked it as such and you keep trying to reference this phrase to that source. I shan't waste my time tagging it until the result of this discussion but if it survives I shall ask for a 3rd opinion (which really shouldn't be necessary) and I will abide by that opinion as I hope you will too...hope springs eternal...Dom from Paris (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, we already have three opinions, and two of them say you are wrong. Your vehement opinion {"blatant") is hysterical, wrong, and not proof of anything (other than your opinion).  The louder your voice, the more sceptical I become.  Ipse dixit just won;t do.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As Pope Benedict XVI so rightly said "Truth is not determined by a majority vote" but if we are counting heads for the fun of it I think there are at least 4 editors that disagree with you: myself, the nominator, SnowFire and NiD.29 and possibly Nyttend. Also I would ask you to please try and make an effort to avoid the ad hom comments. This discussion and other associated talk pages are peppered with them. I and others have patiently replied to your comments and politely explained why we disagree with you only to be met with sarcasm and personal comments. It's a shame really and if you took a step back you might actually realise that he who is shouting the loudest is not necessarily him whom you accuse. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the London Gazette is simply the place of publication of formal announcements of the UK government. It includes everyone who receives an honour. It documents the honour, but it does show its significance for notability. The statement of why the award is given is the usual bureaucratic puffery.  DGG' ( talk ) 06:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely and as a DSC is the UK's 4th highest award for valour in the face of the enemy it does not qualify for a pass on #1 at WP:NSOLDIER. The more we discuss the more I am for delete now so I'm going back from merge. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NSOLDIER because, as the commander of 800 Naval Air Squadron, he "played an important role in a significant military event". There's no case for deletion as there are obvious alternatives which we should prefer per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a personal opinion and not backed up any sources. A squadron is the second lowest level of unit in aviation and a Lt Commander is an OF-3, the first level of senior officer. Simply commanding in combat a squadron or infantry company or being an senior officer on a ship (Lt Commanders rarely command a vessel of any importance) would not infer notability in itself so I do not believe NSOLDIER is met, if this is what is meant by "an important role" this would open the door to an unbelievably large number of articles. The importance of the role has to be proven by reliable sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources provided above and in the article seem quite adequate to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. The size of the units in the Falklands war were quite small – this was not WW2 with vast army groups and thousands of aircraft.  The subject commanded a large portion of the British air forces in this war and so his importance was correspondingly significant.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to change your !vote but just to put into perspective your comment from what I can gather from this article British air services in the Falklands War is that there were 212 aircraft involved in the conflict including 38 harriers (FRS1 and GR3 models). Auld commanded 12 aircraft which is 5% of the air forces or 32% of the Harriers. I am not sure what you would call small but 25,948 British service personnel served in the campaign and the only figure I found for the Argentinian forces was the killed + wounded + captured which was 13,619. It's odd but people do not realise just quite how many were involved. This was a conflict that lasted 74 days and 42,000+ belligerents, we are not talking about a small affaire in my eyes. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2019 (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.