Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Winterbottom

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Had to think over a decent rationale for this one. While some have mentioned that other articles such as Herbert F. Christian are similar to this one, the fact that other articles exist really isn't a valid reason for an article to automatically be kept. That said, some of the articles that exist but received lesser awards is something I've taken into account. The fact that the award received isn't as notable as some that exist now is not overly relevant, this person was not around when these new awards have existed, so this does not apply. If they were awarded something that at the time was a high award, then that's what's relevant. This seems to be the case here, and he has received reasonable coverage in at least one of the sources presented. The article in itself is a perm-stub, and it might be best to summarise the information in the article into one paragraph, and merge it to another article. That's what I'd do. But that's a discussion for the article talk page. There's no consensus here for deletion, so I'm closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Winterbottom

[edit]
Kevin Winterbottom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual who does not meet the general notability guidelines. The only claim of significance is that he died in a brave and honourable way - unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, no matter how brave an individual is. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find a lot on him yet - the only really good material I've turned up so far is in Cross of Honour, (ISBN 0958317321), but I don't have access to it. Nevertheless, I'm curious as to the significance of the Honoris Crux - from our article on it, it appears it might be significant enough to get past WP:BIO, if it is (as described) the South African equivalent of the Victoria Cross. - Bilby (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the award, but although the Honoris Crux was the highest military decoration awarded in peacetime, the article on the Crux states that the 2nd Type decoration which Winterbottom was awarded was the lowest of the four classes of the Honoris Crux Decoration - so I'm not sure that the Victoria Cross equivalence is there (if he had received the Honoris Crux Diamond (never actually awarded) or perhaps the Honoris Crux Gold (6 recipients, none of whom currently have articles here), that would appear to be a closer match to the Victoria Cross). I note that none of the Honoris Crux Silver recipients (27 of them) or the 64 listed recipients (of 201 awarded) of the Honoris Crux have articles - that would seem to imply that the receipt of one of the 4 levels if the Crux is not in and of itself sufficient to meet the notabiluy criteria (although I am aware of the fact that the existance or otherwise of other articles is not an indication of whether this article should exist, it is interesting to note that none of the 31 people who received the higher classes have articles, nor do any of the other 200 recipients of the same class). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of the higher classes, I'm inclined just to knock that off as a side effect of it being a South African award, as those topics haven't received as much attention. But I'm very open to opinions on the 2nd Type - its not my field, and there only being one decent source on Winterbottom so far is a bit of a concern. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Honoris Crux Silver was the highest possible bravery award in a non-combat situation. Whether that means it is not equal in "rank" to a Victoria Cross or Medal Of Honor I don't know. The fact that none of the other HC recipients have articles yet is simply due to the tiny number of participants in WikiProject South Africa and even fewer SA Milhist participants. There is a massive backlog of South Africa related articles to be created. Roger (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, he was awarded the "basic" Honoris Crux not the Silver. Roger (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction. Winterbottom was awarded the Honoris Crux Type 2. It was then the highest available medal for peacetime bravery.
Correct myself. Upon further reading it seems that indeed the HC up to 1975 was not the same from 1976. Still confusing. Markusrow (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I cannot verify this and by way of background but not directly material to the discussion, I suggest that the likely reason for the discontinuation of the Honoris Crux medals, was as a result of a new beginning for South Africa, at all levels in the 1990's. During this period South African National sporting teams adopted new colors, names, and I imagine that similarly over time the entire range of medals and awards were changed to a new one being adopted as a symbolic political gesture of renewal. Again it would seem unlikely that previous awards were withdrawn. National colors / caps in the sporting world were not retroactively reversed or annulled.
Mark  15:024, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that all the HC winners should have pages/articles of their own. Rather than deleting this one, we should add the others. It also seems to me that, excluding the performance on the bombing raid, the reason for issuing the VC to Edwin_Swales is the same as the issuing of the Honoris Crux to Kevin Winterbottom. BoonDock (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems substantially similar to the MOH or VC. Rmhermen (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the "crux" of the matter, pardon the pun! If it is equivalent to the VC or the MOH, then he'd be a shoe-in. However, whilst the Victoria Cross is the highest military decoration in the UK and the Commonwealth, and the Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the US, the Honoris Crux (2nd type) is not. According to South African military decorations, the order of decoration at that time were: Castle of Good Hope Decoration, Honoris Crux Diamond, Honoris Crux Gold, Order of the Star of South Africa, Honoris Crux Silver, and then Honoris Crux — 2nd Type. This means that it was the 6th highest award available in 1976 when Winterbottom died and was awarded the Crux. It's current equivalent (the Nkwe ya Boronse) is the 3rd highest award available - again, I would argue that this is not equivalent to the VC or the MoH. Incidentally, from what I have read, if Winterbottom had died a few years later, then he would not have been eligible for the Crux, as it was later only awarded for combat conditions. Also, although the Crux may have been the highest award in peacetime, both the MoH and the VC are indisputably the highest awards in their countries, outranking all other awards whether war-time or peace-time. The Crux does not outrank the military awards mentioned above, and so it would not be the equivalent - to be honest, if he had won the Gold award (no Diamond awards having been given), I'd be more inclined to accept it as the equivalent of the VC/MoH, but as it is 3 orders below even that one, I cannot see how it can be the equivalent. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
  1. At least as notable as the following similar articles Uładzimir Karvat, Albert Hickman (pilot), Beverley Randolph (aviator)
  2. Possible more notable than Kim Campbell (pilot) since Winterbottom died in the crash.
  3. All Honoris Crux recipients are probably notable enough to warrant articles of their own.
  4. A lack of online information does not always indicate a lack of notability. South Africa was significantly isolated during the '70s and a lot of information was not published internationally. More information on Winterbottom can probably be found with a visit to one of the branches of the South African Air Force Museum.
--NJR_ZA (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Karvat received the highest award possible - no other awards rank higher than that, either military or civilian - as such he clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. Hickman, Randolph and Campball should not (from my reading of the notability criteria) have articles on Wikipedia - they have not been awarded the highest award, and I do not see that they meet the criteria for military personnel otherwise.
  2. I'd agree that holders of the Gold Crux would meet the notability criteria automatically - however, the award that Winterbottom received was 3 levels below that award
  3. I never mentioned that this was nominated for lack on online sources - if there is significant coverage (i.e. more than a short paragraph) in multiple reliable off-line sources, then I'd agree that he meets the criteria for inclusion. I cannot physically search for such sources as I am nowhere near South Africa, but just saying "there must be some sources" is not sufficient to justify keeping an article. Of course, if someone in SA can find some significant coverage in reliable independent sources and cite them, that'd mean that he meets the criteria for notability, in which case I'd happily withdraw my nomination for deletion
I have no issue with this particular article - I admire what Winterbottom did, on a personal level - but if he does not meet the notability criteria, then he should not have an article on Wikipedia. As I have already said, I do not believe that the 2nd type of the Crux (as the 6th highest award in SA at the time) is equivalent to the VC or the MoH (both of which are the highest awards for their respective jurisdictions), and so in and of itself, being awarded that is not sufficient to meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NJR_ZA and add to the list that finding current online official sources would be extremely difficult because the significance of anything that happened in SA before 1994 (except for events involving "the struggle") is downplayed by the current powers that be. They find it difficult to acknowlege that anyone connected to the "evil apartheid regime" could ever have done anything good or decent. The current controversy about veterans affairs legislation is evidence of this official bias. Roger (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does now meet the general notability guidelines with the recent addition of proper citations. AIUI the "highest medal" notability rule is only meant to "save" articles that don't otherwise meet the GNG. Thus this discussion is now moot. Roger (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect, I disagree! I don't see the significant coverage at multiple, reliable, independent sources. Let's look at the sources:
  1. SA Roll of Honour - Person Information
    • I can find no evidence that this meets the reliable source criteria. People submit information to this person's own website, and the owner updates the database they keep accordingly. The "Information" box does not explain who the owner of the website is, or what checking they do of the information submitted by people. There is also the fact that the main page here states There are some very definite errors in the database. This comes about because there are errors in some of the details that were supplied to me by the SANDF, as well as the possibility of typing/OCR errors during the process of capturing the data. If you spot something that you KNOW is wrong, then PLEASE contact me so that I can update the database. - another indication that it can't be considered a completely reliable source.
  2. Google Books: Borderstrike!: South Africa into Angola 1975-1980 By Willem Steenkamp page 284
    • The full extent of the entry reads Serial: 25; Number: 70388129PE; Rank & Name: Second-Lieut. K. R. Winterbottom (P); Unit: 4 Squadron SAAF - hardly the 'significant coverage' required by the notability criteria
  3. "KEVIN ROY WINTERBOTTOM". South Africa War Graves Project.
    • Firstly, as this does not appear to be an official Government-sanctioned project, I'm not sure how 'reliable' it would be. The coverage is basically the same as the Roll of Honour (in fact the details appear to be word-for-word the same, so I assume that's from the Crux citation text) and details of his serial number, rank, etc. Again, not "signficant" coverage
  4. Du Toit, Graham C.L. (2005). Roll of Honour - South African Air Force. South African Air Force Association. p. 100
    • Total entry: Winterbottom K.R. (HC) 2/Lt 09/06/76 - not the significant coverage required.
  5. Uys, Ian (1993). Cross of honour. Uys Publishers. p. 45. ISBN 0958317321.
    • Without knowing the extent of the coverage in this book, it's hard to know whether this is significant coverage or not! Google Books shows only 1 page with mention of a "Winterbottom" (here, where he is listed as a recipient of the HC - that shows no further detail; an older edition (here would appear to indicate that the HC citation is printed there (presumably this is where the Roll of Honour and the SAWGP sites got the information). This would appear to be the best source (from which all the other sources obtained their information), and I'd agree that this would meet the requirements as a reliable independent source.
In summary, apart from that last source, the others either have little information (and certainly not significant coverage), or are just quoting the citation of the award (which the book gives) - and so are in effect one source.
As such, I do not consider this discussion to be moot, as the GNG has not (from what I can see) been met. Have there been any books written which include (for example) a chapter about Winterbottom, which don't just print out the citation text? If so, that'd help - but if all the sources are using the same text, there is not the multiple sourcing which GNG requires PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add for clarity, that although the Cross of Honour book appears to have significant coverage (snippets are shown from pages 43 and 45, I assume that page 44 also discusses Winterbottom), in itself it is insufficient to meet the criteria - GNG says multiple sources - and as I said, the other sources appear to use the text from this book, and so in effect are one source. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phantomsteve, according to Mark's comment above several of the awards you mention as outranking this did not exist at the time. Is this not correct? We can't judge "topness" using the awards available at this time when he was awarded at that time. Rmhermen (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were indeed two varieties of HC. From 1952-1975 there was just one type (which was the 5th highest award at the time). South Africa changed their awards system in 1975 (i.e. the year before Winterbottom's death and award), changing the HC from 1 class to 4 classes (Diamond, Gold, Silver and "Type 2" - the latter being the one which Winterbottom was awarded). There was a big shake-up in the awards system in 1975, however the highest award since 1952 was still the Castle of Good Hope Decoration. The other award I mentioned way up above was the Order of the Star of South Africa which was instituted in 1975. This means that in 1976 when Winterbottom died, the Honoris Crux 2nd type was the 6th highest award available (albeit the highest non-combat award) and so not a comparison to the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor which are both the highest award available (whether in wartime or not). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must correct a misinterpretation here. The Diamond, Gold, Silver and "plain" HCs were collectively the "Second type", which all replaced the "first type" which consisted of only a single medal. "Second type" does not mean second in rank it means second chronologically. (The Medal of Honor also went through a sequence of different designs and "types" and even the awarding criteria were changed throughout its history.) It is also incorrect to include the Order of the Star of South Africa in this particlur lineup as that was a Service award, not a Valour decoration. As for the Castle of Good Hope Decoration, even though it was explicitly a replacement for the VC when South Africans were no longer eligibe for that award, IMHO it should be considered to be "vapourware". It was never awarded thus the HC was the de-facto highest award for valour. It almost seems like it would have taken an act akin to single-handedly defeating the entire Klingon Empire to even be considered for a CGH. Roger (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the "systemic bias". This is the first attempt at an article about a recipient of any grade or type of HC. Until now the Anglo-American (not the mining company) "hegemony" on WP has had this field almost entirely to itself. I think we should also try to broaden this discussion and not try to hang this entire debate only on the status of the medal by taking a serious look at WP:BIO1E and more specifically the first point of WP:ANYBIO wich directly contradicts the idea that only the highest possible medal counts. There are similar articles about US pilots who didn't even get a medal for their "notability conferring single incidents" or they were lower ranking medals. Roger (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the award. As I read it, this was the highest possible award awarded by the Republic, and thus we should treat Winterbottom like we treat people such as Herbert F. Christian, who seems to have been a thoroughly average person aside from the circumstances of his death and the posthumous decoration he was granted. I don't see the substantial difference between these two men. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Winterbottom&oldid=1136110879"