Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Baker-Falkner


 * 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 editors advocating deletion had the better of the policy argument here, as the subject does not meet the project guideline WP:SOLDIER and lacks independent coverage that suggests notability. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Roy Baker-Falkner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Is an entry in peerage enough to make him notable? Otherwise there is nothing to indicate notability Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking an interest in this article, Gbawden. No, definitely a mention in 'The peerage' alone does not indicate notability. It was the only source I could find for some of his biographical details, but your comments made me dig deeper and I have now replaced it with the more detailed information of Veteran Affairs Canada. Notability in this case is based on his important role in Operation Tungsten, the decorations he received and the fact that he was mentioned in dispatches. The other sources listed relate to this. I think that puts it more or less is in line with WP:SOLDIER but I'd be interested to hear your views on this. Nl maclean (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Reliable sources indicate subject was "mentioned in dispatches" which seems to pass WP:SOLDIER. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently I misread the SNG; being mentioned doesn't meet the criteria. The subject otherwise doesn't pass SOLDIER or GNG. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as seems to pass WP:SOLDIER for mentioned in dispatches. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In reply to the two posts above, "mentioned in dispatches" comes nowhere near being the nation's highest award for valour as required by WP:SOLDIER criterion 1, and I don't see how anyone could think that it meets any other of the criteria. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with '157 here--this is not a qualifying award.  DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I'm not finding anything substantial in Google books. Mentioned in despatches does not meet SOLDIER1. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman, I am not quite sure I understand. The Google books link you posted actually leads to the R.F. Baker-Falkner's biography? Nl maclean (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure if it would be considered RS. It's written by a one-time author for Pen & Sword, a non-scholarly publisher, as I understand. The author has no training as a historian, journalist or writer: LinkedIn profile. It's also odd that so few sources mention the subject; if he was a "legendary pilot" surely there would be more sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Baker-Falkner is also mentioned in Patrick Bishop's The Hunt for Hitler's Warship. Kges1901 (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Mystified as to why editors seem to think a mention in despatches makes him pass WP:SOLDIER. It's the lowest possible British award, which doesn't even qualify as a medal. Both his DSO and DSC are considerably higher, and neither of those would qualify under WP:SOLDIER either (as a second- and third-level award respectively). Bizarre reasoning from people who clearly don't understand how British honours work. He would need a DSO and bar (or at a pinch a DSO and a DSC and bar, or a DSC and two bars) to qualify him on awards alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the 'bizarre reasoning' you mention may have something to do with the wording of WP:SOLDIER: "It is important to note that a person who does not meet these criteria is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. For example, Teddy Sheean, who received a Mention in Despatches, is notable despite having received a relatively low-level military decoration." People who are not aware that a Mention in Despatches is in fact a decoration in its own right, could read this as meaning that where Wikipedia-notability is concerned, MiD trumps a low-level medal. I know that is how I read it. But thanks for explaining. Nl maclean (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't know what a particular phrase, such as "mentioned in dispatches", means then shouldn't you check before expressing an opinion in a deletion discussion? If people don't do this then the results of discussions will be based on ignorance. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Effectively a DSO and Bar for this chap, although the SOLDIER presumption is fairly weak here, and the MiD is neither here nor there, really. The Google Books search isn't conclusive. BTW, the Sheehan reference in SOLDIER is about someone who meets the GNG without meeting SOLDIER (ie award of the MiD doesn't meet SOLDIER, but Sheehan has significant coverage in reliable sources anyway, so meets the GNG). SOLDIER is an essay, GNG is a guideline. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How exactly does a DSO and DSC equate to a DSO and Bar?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It obviously doesn't. The subject clearly doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER, so needs to be evaluated on the basis of the general notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - its weak per PM's post above, but there seems to be enough coverage per WP:GNG to not dynamite this (including the dead tree biography and a few websites). In addition to the Canadian websites the publication of the biography seemed to get some international press coverage, e.g. UK and Malta as examples, it looked like there were others when I searched Google. Anotherclown (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems rather clear to me that somebody who got a biography written about him is notable. Pen & Sword is not a vanity press. Whether he passes SOLDIER is basically irrelevant - does the subject pass GNG? Obviously. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  keep  this one is by no means a slam dunk, but this is a real newspaper feature story/interview with the author of the biography and I think it squeaks past. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The newspaper article linked by E.M.Gregory reveals why there is a biography of the subject even though he was only a lieutenant commander, a mid-ranking officer, with no other apparent significant coverage - the biography was written by his nephew. In the absence of any significant coverage in independent (non-family) reliable sources this is a pretty clear "delete". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Indeed, the source linked by states:
 * "Now his nephew, Graham Roy Drucker has written his uncle's biography, Wings Over Waves to preserve his memory forever."
 * This is not a source independent of the subject, and should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2016 (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.