Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George L. Knox II

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. Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George L. Knox II

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

George L. Knox II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio) and dePRODed. Source 1) is wartime propaganda and just a photo and 2 sentences. 2) is CAF a user contribution site. 3) is a Tuskegee Airmen chapter so not independent. 4) is clearly not reliable. 5) an interview with his son so not independent and there's no RS that he was involved in court martials arising from the Freeman Field mutiny. A Google search turn up nothing of substance. None of the sources address the subject directly and in detail. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organization or having a notable son does not confer notability on all its members. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you aren't prepared to comment on the sources, how can you assert that BASIC is satisfied and that he is notable? My comment on the creator is perfectly valid background, I have spent the last 2+ days cleaning up pages he created and keep finding more copyvios. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst Where did I claim that the Tuskegee Airmen as a group are not notable? The User who created this page created 66 poorly-sourced and written pages about Tuskegee Airmen. I have spent the last 3-4 days cleaning them all up and AFDing those that fail WP:BASIC. 15 pages have been deleted, 5 are at AFD and another 1-2 will be put up for AFD, a lot, but not "any article started by the editor who started this article". Just being an Airmen or the fact that the Airmen as a group were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal doesn't make them all notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Did you actually read the source analysis I provided and do your own BEFORE search about him and not just the Airmen as a group? Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCLEANUP we have surmountable problems here. A Tuskegee Airman who broke the color barrier is an easy pass of WP:ANYBIO The Congressional Gold Medal alone is proof of what the country believes about the contributions. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only CLEANUP is me fixing some poorly sourced and written pages and AFDing those that don't meet BASIC. You are still making an INHERITED argument, all Tuskegee Aimen broke the color barrier and the group was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, but that doesn't mean that each of the 1007 Airmen is individually notable. Which of the 3 criteria of ANYBIO do you think he meets? Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We should also explore his role in presiding over the Freeman Field Mutiny court martial. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did and couldn't find anything to support his claimed involvement. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tuskegee airmen are NOT notable based on a Congressional Gold Medal (the group is notable though), the Gold Medal wasn't awarded to this fellow individually, but to all 994 Tuskegee airmen, and it wasn't even physically presented to individual Tuskegee airmen; the only one made was "presented" to representatives of the group then retained by the Smithsonian. This fellow does not meet the GNG, as he personally does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. He also doesn't meet ANYBIO because he didn't get awarded the Medal as an individual. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meets WP:ANYBIO number 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; Which is what the Congressional Gold Medal was about. Lightburst (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You try to have it all ways! No he did not individually make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, so he fails #2 of ANYBIO and the Congressional Gold Medal was not an individual award so #1 of ANYBIO is not satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already know your opinion...you are the nominator. No need to attack any Keep ivote or rational. We already know you based much of this rationale on an essay and the fact that the original author was indeffed for copyvio. I was replying to Peacemaker67 and I am sure that they can respond or read/dismiss and move on. I am sure a WP:CONSENSUS will be reached. Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you keep making the same incorrect assertions about the Congressional Gold Medal and ANYBIO I am compelled to respond to them. Mztourist (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are not compelled. The reasons for this Afd are deficient. Your rational is an essay and your remarks about the indeffed author. But my rationale is that WP:ANYBIO is a notability Guideline. The definition of a guideline is this: information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be: I interpret that guideline in a way that does not favor deletion. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have different opinions on notability but your assertions regarding the Congressional Gold Medal and ANYBIO are simply incorrect, I am not the only User who has pointed this out to you. Mztourist (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop focussing on the very prestigious medal (it is just one component which shows what our nation thinks about these heroes) and instead focus on notability. I just added a source to show that Knox was one of ten officers who presided over the very historic Freeman Field Mutiny court-martial. Our guideline is about interpretation ...and I have to overcome your WP:ADHOM attack in the deletion rationale. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop asserting that a unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal satisfies #1 of ANYBIO and instead focus on the sources. Please explain how you have had "to overcome [my] WP:ADHOM attack in the deletion rationale." One of 10 officers presiding over the Freeman Field Mutiny court-martial, truly historic...Mztourist (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Meets WP:ANYBIO number 2"? By that broad logic couldn't we argue basically any WWII vet passes muster? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;" OK, I'll bite, Lightburst. What "widely recognized contribution" did George L. Knox II personally make to the "enduring historical record" regarding the "Tuskegee airmen" (which is presumably what you are arguing...)? He was one of 100 airmen, his contribution is around a tenth of one percent (1 out of 994 airmen) of the total contribution of the Tuskegee airmen (assuming he actually saw combat), and there isn't even any mention in the article of whether he flew combat missions or not, whether he shot down any enemy aircraft etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67Thank you for the message. Please check out the article again. I have added a few important facts about his involvement. One fact that I uncovered is that he was the president of the court at the Freeman Field Mutiny court martials. Regarding combat, or kills - very few Tuskegee Airmen were in that position. Because of the color barrier in the military the Tuskegee airmen were relegated to escort duty. Dangerous but not glorious. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Avilich has already noted below, he was not "the president of the court at the Freeman Field Mutiny court martials" he was one of 10 presiding officers over a court martial that was concluded immediately resulting in one minor conviction that was overturned. None of that, his non-existent combat record, nor being a member of the airmen, alone or combined satisfies #2 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist Please read the notes - He was named president after Benjamin O. Davis was removed for cause. New information was found since User:Avilich commented. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear, what "widely recognized contribution" are you claiming this fellow made? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst if the only source is a photo caption that just reinforces the non-notability. Mztourist (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avilich Made some improvements after finding a few sources - he made the news after he died of an accidental gunshot at his home in 1964. Not sure what happened there. Also after Benjamin O. Davis was removed as president during the court-martials - Knox II was named president. I have a source from the Bureau of public relations, war department July 2, 1945..but it is a clipping, so I need to do further research. I have his awards and obituary. Will continue... Lightburst (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the delete arguments come before the article was apparently expanded, and it would thus seem to me that a more thorough discussion of the improved article and its sources is warranted at this stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article still relies too heavily on non-RS sources (CAF being the major offender, but there are others). Expanded sources are either obituaries, the subject's own auto-biography, and various namechecks. Intothatdarkness 16:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I endorse Intothatdarkness's remark. I'll also add that the article is inflated with filler statements like 'one of 1007 pilots', 'one of the first members of X group', 'second of X', 'one of the first twelve', 'second of fourteen to do X', and so on. Take those away and we're left with, 1, a listing of the units he served on; 2, a remark about his role in a mutiny, of which coverage seems to be in such short supply that the names of every single presiding officer had to be dumped indiscriminately to increase the size of the paragraph; and 3, a listing of his awards.

    Now, unlike most other articles on their way to the chopping block, this one has awards other than the posthumous congressional medal, so the Anybio argument has some more validity here. However, with regards to actual sourcing, the only source which qualifies as independent, reliable, secondary, and non-trivial is his obituary. I've seen debates about whether or not obituaries give automatic notability; this one in particular is a brief thing--it's the usual listing of graduation, unit, family, awards, and affiliations, with virtually no comment on the actions he undertook in each capacity. It's safe to say that not everybody who has a family, received a decoration, or is affiliated with some institution is notable enough to warrant an article. At the end of the day, SIGCOV will be the deciding factor, and I agree with Intothatdarkness that the quality and quantity of the sources is not good enough for the moment. Avilich (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich In addition to being a Tuskegee Airman with multiple awards, he was president of the court at an historic court-martial. The article has great WP:RS and it is encyclopedic. I did think about pinging you - but I noticed that you do not change your position even in the face of overwhelming evidence. See Mac Ross's AfD to fact check me. You remained a delete, and you fought any talk of subject's notability and ignored the article's massive expansion. So I am not surprised that you reiterate your delete position. Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute this article having great RS. Mac Ross did (finally, and in my opinion barely), but this article is still relying heavily on a presumption of inherited notability (his father), CAF stuff (and not even a full article there...just the roster that isn't sourced to any degree), and namechecks. One of the sources is concerned only with the aircraft markings, and directs to a personal website. As for multiple awards...no. Those are service awards (with the exception of the Gold Medal)...the equivalent of participation trophies. And at least three of the sources deal with either aircraft markings or Knox's father, and the Black Knights source is a namecheck of Knox with no significant details other than his name and the fact that he was on the court-martial board. It relies heavily on his obituary and not much else. Intothatdarkness 23:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment obviously refers to the current state of the article, after your not-so-massive expansion, not to its pre-nom version. Read it again. My assessment of the sources is the same as Intothedarkness's: only the obituary is even remotely adequate.

    I must've missed the Mac Ross nomination since the relist and close wasn't synced to this one, and I haven't been following every single discussion too closely these past few days. Assuming that sources were actually found and that the discussion was not simply closed due to pile-on voting by Article Canvassing Squadron, there's nothing out of the ordinary here, just AfD functioning as it should. Anyway, I did not renew my position there as I did here, and the closer was free to ignore my original 'delete' vote because of that. This he rightly did--I don't dispute the fairness of the 'keep' result, since that was mostly uncontested, so your comparison with the Ross AfD to emphasize my supposed intransigence is invalid. Avilich (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle that "recently added sources result in the WP:NBIO threshold being met now." As the lead notes, he had a major role as a Tuskegee pilot, won many awards, and was involved in the historic Freeman Mutiny. Naomi.piquette (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these points have already been refuted. As stated above, the only reasonably adequate source available (so far) is his obituary, and even that isn't impressive. There is no indication anywhere that he had a 'major role' in anything, and there's no coverage whatsoever on his role in the trial, just a list of multiple presiding officers among which his name just so happens to feature. The awards don't translate into notability either: as Intothatdarkness has stated above, most of them are participation trophies. 2 million people were awarded the American Defense Service Medal--are they all notable? Avilich (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my contribution to the Mac Ross AFD. Meets WP:ANYBIO #2, and arguably #1. That there are others who might be notable on the same grounds is a reason to create articles for them, not to delete this article. BUT THAT WOULD MEAN WE HAVE TO CREATE 1000 ARTICLES!! Yep. WP:OTHERSTUFF goes both ways. These were barrier-breaking black airmen who - individually and collectively - fought discrimination and institutional racism, just so that they could fight for their country. They set a precedent for the thousands of African-American servicemen and women who have walked in their footsteps. We aren't running out of paper on which to print Wikipedia. St★lwart111 00:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those arguments under ANYBIO have been refuted repeatedly. There aren't sufficient reliable sources to establish his personal notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree as to the adequacy of that refutation because I still find them perfectly reasonable grounds on which to support retention and nobody has come close to properly explaining why we should ignore guidelines and apply a novel interpretation in this instance. St★lwart111 04:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC is not a novel interpretation, however claiming that a unit award satisfies #1 of ANYBIO for an individual and that just being a Tuskegee Airman satisfies #2 are indeed novel interpretations that have been refuted.Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not very well. St★lwart111 07:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You neglected to mention that part of the enduring historical record thing, as well as that footnote conveniently explaining what that means. It's in the very same guideline, you had it right before your eyes. Graduating, serving in the military, having your unit number made public, marrying and dying does not make one 'part of the historical record' by the guideline definition (neither does 'fighting for your country' or 'breaking barriers', btw). Avilich (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Above argumentation, while ardent, doesn't seem to have addressed the core issues of sourcing. In my search, however, I was able to find thirteen newspaper sources, which independently confirm every detail previously present in the article. I've formatted them all as references, incorporated them into the article, and written out a lot of extra information which wasn't previously present. I would advise previous !voters who had concerns about sourcing to take another look: @Mztourist:, @Oaktree b:, @Avilich:, @GPL93:, @Intothatdarkness:, @Peacemaker67:. jp×g 00:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rites Held". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1964-11-28. p. 5.
  2. ^ "'Skegee Instructor Is Accident Victim". The Mobile Beacon and Alabama Citizen. Mobile, Alabama. 1964-11-14. p. 1.
  3. ^ "Col. George Knox Dies In Alabama". The Indianapolis News. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1964-11-05. p. 26.
  4. ^ "Acceptance by Regular Army Rates Them Among Best in Nation". California Eagle. Los Angeles, California. 1946-09-19. p. 9.
  5. ^ "Fine Bomber Pilot $150". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1945-07-14. p. 4.
  6. ^ "Bombardment Squadron Has Superior Record". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1944-08-12. p. 2.
  7. ^ "Returns for Visit". The Indianapolis News. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1943-07-10. p. 18.
  8. ^ "George L. Knox". The Indianapolis News. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1942-12-26. p. 15.
  9. ^ "Monster Meeting Series To Start". The Indianapolis News. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1942-11-14. p. 18.
  10. ^ "Brown Fighters Will Keep Colors Flying For U.S.A." The Detroit Tribune. Detroit, Michigan. 1942-07-04. p. 17.
  11. ^ "Third Class of Army Cadets Takes To Air". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-05-30. p. 1.
  12. ^ "Tuskegee Flying School Graduates Another Class of Negro Pilots". Southeast Air Corps Training Center News. Montgomery, Alabama. 1942-05-30. p. 3.
  13. ^ "Army Offers Four-State Area 325 Cadet Pilot Scholarships a Month". The Indianapolis Star. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1941-10-19. p. 16.
  • Comment more WP:REFBOMBING. 2. about his death is the only story of any depth and content. All the rest are passing mentions, including 7. about his wife visiting her in-laws which shows the low quality of wartime newspaper reports as sources. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "passing mention" here, because three of the articles are entirely (and exclusively) about Knox. I am not saying that all thirteen of them are WP:SIGCOV; I'm saying that enough of them are to imply notability, and that the article (which was suggested for deletion largely due to a lack of sourcing) now has sources to support its claims. The specific text being supported by reference #7 (which is also supported by another reference in the article) is that he wass assigned to Selfridge Field in Michigan (which is, indeed, right there in the clipping). I am not sure what your objection to this is; text in Wikipedia articles is generally supposed to be cited to a source. If your claim is that the Indianapolis News is not a reliable source, you can always go to WP:RSN; otherwise, I am confused. jp×g 08:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention means his name is mentioned with no real detail. Which 3 of the 13 you have added are you referring to that are entirely and exclusively about him? The reports of his death? In relation to 7. we know he was at Oscoda Air Base/Selfridge Field, we don't need a trivial mention to support that when we have an RS. Your additions also ignore Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and introduced repetition of awards that I have deleted. Mztourist (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to discuss this here instead of the article's talk page? jp×g 22:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your Refbombing to save the page and adding detail in the lede that doesn't belong there, that's what's being discussed here. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't think we are going to come to an agreement on this; feel free to ping me on the talk page if you've got concerns about the formatting of the article. jp×g 11:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of these miserably fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE ("Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article"). This is just more of the usual low-effort fluff by editors who find someone's name mentioned somewhere and think they made a day. Ref. 6 talks about the entire squadron, not Knox, his name is mentioned only among his colleagues without any commentary on him specifically. Avilich (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's little more than the usual ROUTINE/NOTNEWS stuff that this article was created with in the beginning, which Mztourist and other editors have repeatedly outlined in detail above. Evidence that he as an individual did something particularly outstanding, or substantial biographical prose in a way that would satisfy ANYBIO, is still lacking. Avilich (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know that I'd consider this to be significant improvement. The sourcing is still weak, and quite a bit is still tied to either his father or his unit, which doesn't speak to the notability of the individual. Intothatdarkness 15:32, 12 October 2021 (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/George_L._Knox_II&oldid=1057700452"