Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Kinkead


 * 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 (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Kinkead

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Normally I object to AfDing an article too quickly, but while this fellow was a decorated fighter pilot in WWI, he topped out with a DSO and a DSC, and didn't seem to do much of anything else in his life (if the only 4 Google hits on Google South Africa are an indicator). I believe it's been held that you have to be a VC medal holder to be prima facie notable, and as it stands, the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:V  RGTraynor  20:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fighter aces attract considerable public interest. Newspaper and magazine from WW I may have more details. --Eastmain (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Eastmain's point about older newspapers and magazines (and likely South African sources which aren't yet digitized?) is a good one. Wikipedians tend to rely on Google too much for notability checks which are likely to fail for minor (yet encyclopedically worthy) individuals. I take the original editor(s) in good faith on this one for my advising "keep." --Quartermaster (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as one of the top aces of WWI. Also for his leading a 100-strong RAF Flight during the Russian Intervention even after the RAF offically withdrew.  And for being a member of the RAF Trophy Team who died attempting to set the world speed record. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral In a sense, I am glad that this motion for deletion has been made. As the new guy in Wikitown, I don't have a firm grip on suitability and notability. This will give me an opportunity to learn. Please let me explain my working criteria to date,and whatever rationale I may have evolved.

I have been following the guidance so kindly provided by the man who invited me to this project, Trevor Innes. His belief, as I understand it, is that all the World War I aces are notable figures. As there are 1860 of them (according to www.theaerodrome.com), I have my doubts. Even if they are all notable, I doubt the info exists for all of them.

It has been posited that winning a Victoria Cross is the only sufficient notability. I can only assume that the equivalent medals in other nation's services would serve for them. I would like to make the following points about this approach.

1) Medals are awarded to maintain morale and keep troops fighting. Higher ranks tend to award one another as a promotional aid. These unfortunate slants taint the heroism of those that honestly earned them. Still, there it is.

2) Criteria for awarding medals varies widely from country to country, and even from case to case and from time to time. For instance, the Pour le Merite was pegged to a certain victory total. When a German pilot reached that level, he got the Blue Max. That victory total slid steadily upwards throughout the war. Many pilots scoring late in the war exceeded the victory total that had brought earlier pilots the award. Boelcke and Immelman received it in 1916 for 8 victories. By 1918, there were literally hundreds of German pilots who had 8 or more wins and didn't get the Blue Max. On the other hand, Otto Konnecke qualified--and the war ended before he could have it awarded.

3) On a personal note, I served with Fred Platt, who was twice recommended for the Medal of Honor. He didn't get it because, while he was on crutches, he defended himself against assault by a superior officer. In other words, the deserving can be shortchanged for some very shifty reasons.

4) Some relatively minor aces went on postwar to quite notable careers in either military or civil aviation. They would be deleted for lack of the requisite medals.

5) The reverse is also true. It was possible to win one of the qualifying decorations and not be an ace. That is, at the extreme, one could win it without even shooting down a single enemy.

6) Kinkead, though not winning the VC, won the Distinguished Service Order, two Distinguished Service Crosses, and two Distinguished Flying Crosses. Follow the links and make up your own mind about notability. I might add that the pilots I knew who won DFCs were very brave men indeed.

I don't know how this figures in, or even if it does, but...is colorfulness and human interest a factor? For instance, Kinkead's brother being killed at a crucial point in his career. Or Leon Bourjade interrupting theological studies to become an ace and being ordained postwar?

So then, we are in truly muddy waters here. I do have a passion for the subject, but lack guidelines and have not yet developed a feel for what fits here.

Given that I am creeping down the List of World War I Flying Aces, I am at the point where, if this article is deletable, then pretty much anything written about aces lower on the table (that is, having scored fewer victories) is deletable. I guess. Probably. Maybe. Heck, I dunno.

At any rate, I see no point in completing Kinkead just yet. Nor do I feel inclined to write other articles just to see them deleted. This is not petulance speaking, but practicality. I do have a couple of books that I am writing. I have been holding them in abeyance to write here. It seems to make more sense to me to write on them instead, at least until this shakes out.

````George J. Dorner, 18 September 2008, 2046 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdorner (talk • contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A couple relevant gbooks hits, including Aces Falling: War Above the Trenches, 1918 by Peter Hart, p.6 with "Samuel Kinkead was killed, in a sense looking to the next war and pushing back the frontiers of aerial technology, while attempting to break the world air ..." and who knows how much more; some sources are in article already John Z (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep VC is by our usual practice fully sufficient by itself, but it certainly is not necessary.  Sourcing is not yet adequate, but the article is too strong to be deleted only 7 hrs after creation while it's still in progress. I think that would be too soon unless its quite clear that its  going to fail our standards. People are allowed to create articles step by step.  DGG (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is likely well referenced in newspapers of the time and published books. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I have done some edits and the article is now referenced and I have records that he died trying to set the new Air Speed World Record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordoliver (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (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.