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 consensus below is that his cited accomplishments are not quite sufficient for encyclopedic notability, but that could change if additional, third-party sources can be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Karle

David Karle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is marked for deletion discussion at the request of the author (Clarification note: not because the author requests the page be deleted, but because I offered to put the page up for discussion rather than CSD because I'm not a military expert), who is also the article's subject.

I feel the article fails to meet basic notability criteria. The subject has received the Bronze Star, Army Commendation Medal (with Valor Device), and Combat Infantryman's Badge, though I can't independently verify these. It's my understanding that these awards alone are not enough to establish notability for a soldier, and that bronze stars are awarded to a such a large amount of people that the person must have done something else notable. Other than the awards, the subject has written an article. So, what we have is a bronze star and an article written, and a COI case. I propose speedy deletion, but welcome comments (especially from those familiar with the notability of military decorations). FlyingToaster 23:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is a vague possibility that notability under other grounds may be argued for or established. Currently it seems to go on him having served in a military and we don't give automatic notability to staff sergeants or to the medals he has received, to do so would open us up to a veritable deluge of articles. Obviously this is not to take away from what the staff sergeant has achieved, just an unfortunate limitation on what we can reasonably do. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/weak Keep the notability is not as as sergeant, though the Bronze Star is the 4th highest US combat decoration; the notability is for the report Winning on the Ground. Based on the talk page, the implication in the nomination that the subject desires to have the article deleted is not correct. It appear that he is rather asking for afd rather than simply accept the speedy deletion, which is something else entirely. In any case, while the claim to an award such as this may or may not be enough for afd, it is certainly enough to prevent speedy. I urge the nominator to correct his nomination and remove the sentence at the top which gives the incorrect impression DGG (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, you are correct that the author requested discussion rather than a CSD, and I apologize if this was not clear in my summary - I have corrected this with a note. It was not my intention to mislead on his intention. Regardless, I feel we should be looking at this for notability criteria rather than intention. I consider the author of this article to be a highly biased party, as it is about himself, and would like to look at his medals and the article on their own merit. So DGG, my question would be if this article is notable. Writing one article in general is not, but if the article truly has wide influence, it could be argued. FlyingToaster 23:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would question how notable it is to write a briefing paper/policy paper, which is what that looks like. How many civil servants write similar papers every week? It is on a few reading lists, indeed, but the journal itself is pretty non notable. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Narson is referring "Winning on the Ground," which is the article subject's claim to fame. It appears to be a publication for internal military use, and "for official use only" is stamped on every page. You can see it at Wikileaks. FlyingToaster 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was for internal use by the military only, so I doubt we'll see much cultural impact. Maybe military policy impact, but I'm not sure how we'd establish that. FlyingToaster 10:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The impact would be expected to come from the effect of the leaked article after it was leaked-- Karle subsequently became a conservative commentator as Dave Karle, not David: see [1], and I think is possibly notable as such. But third party sources for notability of this are needed. Changed to Weak Keep as I have not yet looked for the sources. DGG (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Toaster, an impact on the military would make it notable too, although you're right I'm not sure how you'd establish that. Yes, I too am leaning towards a keep. Just another thought, if the article is kept it might be worth reporting this situation to BLP or wherever it is they deal with people contributing to articles about themselves. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article has to make the case for the notability. It doesn't. If he was clearly notable and the article was just so flawed as to not show that, that would be one thing, but I think his notability is pretty borderline anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I echo what Narson said. David Karle might have an internally published Military Article, but tons of people do. There is a complete lack of notability here. Delete! Riotrocket8676 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2008 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Karle
No tags for this post.