Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Knilans


 * 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. L Faraone  01:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick Knilans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure this person is notable enough. Although he won the DFC from 2 countries, this wasn't unusual in WW2 Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment you've apparently missed, (or decided to conveniently ignore) his DSO, which is not an insignificant award by any means (it was awarded to only 870 RAF officers during the war). 20,354 DFCs were awarded, so by my reckoning that makes a DSO worth 23 DFCs, or 1/40th of a Victoria Cross (awarded 22 times).  He also flew with an elite squadron (617 Squadron) that was tasked with specialised precision bombing, including two pretty important operations (Operation Taxable and the attacks on Tirpitz, and has been the subject to much research (starting with Paul Brickhill's seminal The Dam Busters.  In terms of coverage, he also had a full length obituary in the Daily Telegraph, plus he has a page on the RAF Museum website  - all this was included in the article.  My understanding is that obituary in a national newspaper = Snow keep. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC) plus another book  Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete, subject has received significant coverage and thus meets GNG, as shown by BTBB above, however the subject of this AfD is not considered automatically notable based on the medal he received as they are not considered sufficient per WP:SOLDIER. Also, as the Telegraph article is an obit, the reasoning behind the coverage is the subject's death, and thus WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. As GNG appears to be meet, more stringent notability guidelines do not consider the subject notable within their field, I will support deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I'm with Barney t.b.b. -- an obituary in a major national newspaper looks like a keep right away. Coverage by the RAF Museum to boot. As far as I recall, subject-specific notability criteria can never override WP:GNG, so if RightCowLeftCoast agrees the article meets GNG, I don't see how s/he can still propose delete. I also suggest that RCLC has misinterpreted WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- DSO is a significant award. It is noit an award that comes with the rations.  We only have 1600 articles in the category, which again suggests that the award was not all that common.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A DSO isn't that notable of an award as per WP:SOLDIER, and thus the award alone isn't sufficient by itself to be considered notable. The reasoning for NOTMEMORIAL, is that the subject only received passing mention in reliable sources before the subject's death. It was with the subject's death that the subject received significant coverage, and thus the significant coverage is of the subject's death, and thus BIO1E and NOTMEMORIAL is relevant. If the subject is notable then significant coverage should have been created while the subject was alive, and not only when the subject has died. If I am wrong about this, I am happy to admit that, and change my opinion; but based on what is known to me at this time, I have formed the opinion that I currently hold.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is simply not true. An obituary in a major paper is not covered by BIO1E or NOTMEMORIAL because such an obituary is only granted to those who are already notable. It's not their deaths that are being commemorated but their lives. Obituaries in local papers may fall under these headings, but not major nationals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a clear disparity between WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER, this suggests that WP:SOLDIER is set too high, not the other way round. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject's claim for notability is that the subject is notable for their military service, including the medals and decorations awarded to the subject. The medals and decorations awarded to the subject are not, by consensus of those whom edit within the field of Military History, considered sufficiently notable by themselves for the subject to be considered notable based on medals and decorations alone. The subject did not receive significant coverage while the subject was alive, but mentions (none in-depth that I am presently aware of) in regards to events that did receive significant coverage. Those events are notable, the subject's role in those events are not, otherwise the subject would have received significant coverage about their role in those events while the subject was alive. From what I know of the subject (whose honorable service should be lauded (but that doesn't mean that the subject is notable or should have an article on Wikipedia)), the subject only received significant coverage when the subject died. Therefore, the death is what was given significant coverage, and BIO1E and NOTMEMORIAL apply.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the deduction in your argument is patent gibberish, but so is the premise: The Dam Busters (book) contains plenty of information about his wartime service. It was written when he was still alive. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary subject of the book is the event, not about the subject of this AfD. If the subject received significant coverage for the event, then WP:BIO1E applies, and the subject's article should be redirected to the event. As far as I can tell, there was no significant in-depth coverage of the individual until the subject died, and then the obits were then about the event. Also, please see reasonings given at Articles for deletion/Walter F. Kutschera; medals alone especially medals that are not the highest or second highest medals for valor are not considered automatically notable.
 * Now the question is, did the subject have a significant role in the operations, as stated in SOLDIER. In all the articles about Operation Chastise, Operation Taxable, or attacks on the Tirpitz there is no mention of the subject of this AfD. Therfore, the individual doesn't appear to have played a significant role, and thus is not notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you're switching again. Why when I point out one hole in your premise do you go ahead and invent another hole?  He wasn't involved in Operation Chastise - as that article lists the aircraft and their commanders.  In the case of the other operations, the "significant role" involves flying one of the aircraft involved.  That there is no list of aircraft involved in the articles - in other words, that they are not complete, in that they do not list everything that is known about those operations, is clearly not a criterion for deletion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even more reasoning for the subject not being notable. Thanks. Let me point out that a couple of months ago there were a string of articles regarding pilots and airmen whom had recently died who were involved in the Doolittle Raid. In those AfDs the end outcome was for those who have received obits, with the primary claim to fame being the raid, were all redirected to the raid article. This appears to be a similar case with this subject. The subject has not received significant coverage, but has received brief mentions (outside of the obit(s)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Thomas C. Griffin & Articles for deletion/Dean E. Hallmark. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Talk about destroying the good work especially  but to a lesser extent  .  You would have thought that people at the Military history project would be interested in military history instead of destroying all record of it.  No wonder user:Doolittlefan is apparently annoyed.  Again, WP:SOLDIER is higher than WP:GNG, it is WP:SOLDIER that is wrong, not the other way round. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the DSO alone would not qualify someone for an article (it's a second-level decoration), in combination with a British and an American DFC we have borderline notability through his decorations alone (if two second-level decorations equate to notability I have always believed that three decorations in total also do, although the US DFC is lower in status than the British DFC). Added to an obituary in a major national newspaper this reaches reaches the notability bar in my opinion. I agree that WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been misinterpreted above - major national newspapers only contain obituaries of people who have achieved something in their lives. These people have an obituary because they are notable not because they have died (although the latter is obviously a vital prerequisite!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A DFC is not a second-level decoration, it is a fourth or fifth level medal for valorous acts (fifth if a LoM has a Valor device).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a second-level decoration. But a DSO certainly is and a British DFC is a third-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Third level decorations for valor do not make a subject of an article to be presumed notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As you've said, but as has been said to you, more than once, the DSO is a second level award and it is for leadership rather than bravery. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the medal isn't for valor, it actually has no standing at all regarding the subject's notability. Let me explain, WP:SOLDIER came partially about due to the notable award statement in WP:ANYBIO. As military organizations have many awards, and most are notable in and of themselves, for instance the Purple Heart is notable, but it was the consensus of editors who specialize in the field of Military history, that the medal itself does not confer presumed notability upon a potential biography article subject. So the consensus was formed that individuals who were/are the recipient of their nation's highest level medal for valor would be presumed to have received significant coverage, and thus notable, or those who have received multiple second level medal for valor. Those whom received awards for non-valor service would not be judged to be notable on their medals and decorations alone, and would need to meet the other requirements of SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, that's another thing that's wrong with WP:SOLDIER - the idea that you can only win medals for "valour", and only the top one (i.e. Victoria Cross) is notable -- when leadership (both at field and staff levels) is very important. Again, clearly when WP:SOLDIER is much greater than WP:GNG, it's the former that needs changing, not the latter.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this were the case, as BBB proposes, this would mean that every recipient of the Purple Heart would be considered notable. Would BBB really support that stance?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because the purple hearts is a peculiar US award that is given out for being injured, which is very common (in certain period this would be most of the infantry), literally thousands of men, whereas, as has been attempted to explained to you very patiently and at quite some length which is starting to get a somewhat tiresome, the DSO is an award for leadership that is relatively rare. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "If the medal isn't for valor, it actually has no standing at all regarding the subject's notability." Sorry, but this is rubbish. The DSO has as much standing as any other second-level decoration and in any case until the introduction of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross was awarded for valour as often as it was awarded for leadership. In fact, it was often considered that the award of a DSO to a junior officer indicated that he had only just missed out on the Victoria Cross. All the surviving Dambusters commissioned pilots were awarded the DSO, even the most junior officers, as it was considered to be the officers' equivalent to the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (which was awarded to all the surviving NCO pilots). -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that isn't the consensus that was formed when SOLDIER was created, non-valor medals are not considered when determining notability for those whose primary notability is due to military service. I have suggested a redirect compromise to deletion, but again, the subject IMHO is not individually notable, but is part of a notable group but did not play a significant role as stated in SOLDIER in that groups' operations. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * An army of brave men without competent leaders will be soundly beaten by an army of self-preservationists with good leadership. Otherwise, what else is the point in officer training colleges? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The point of our notability guidelines is that we base our decisions on what reliable sources such as The Daily Telegraph decide is notable rather than on our own opinions of what should be notable. It's very tiresome when people who don't even understand what an obituary in such a publication signifies consider themselves competent to decide what should be covered in an encyclopedia, but I suppose that's an unavoidable by-product of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2013 (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.