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. Both sides of the debate point to a mere wikiproject essay (WP:SOLDIER) to support their views at various points. But in any event, there is a clear consensus for retention based on notability arising out of the subject's award and coverage in reliable sources. Other reasons for deletion (eg BLP1E) are alluded to but they do not have consensus support. Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Ley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable person, fails WP:SOLDIER, should have been speedied, no idea why it wasn't. Single-purpose account. — Timneu22 · talk 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One could argue that any recipient of the George Medal is de facto remarkable. But the issue isn't whether Ley is remarkable, but whether he's notable, and in that respect he satisfies WP:SOLDIER, which states "... an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." The article cites multiple reliable sources. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Jimmy Pitt. While he may fail the Additional Criteria for WP:SOLDIER that determine extenuating circumstances for articles that do not meet the GNG, he most certainly meets the GNG itself. This also does not fall under WP:BLP1E, as his notability is based on something that lasted for six months. Silverseren^C 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at WP:SOLDIER#People, Ley satisfies 2 criteria which are 1. Being awarded the nations second highest gallantry award and 2. Playing an important role in a significant event notable Moshtarak[1]

In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

  1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
  2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
  3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
  4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
  5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or

Ley, features prominently on many major, credible and reliable news sources as the article clearly shows and the fact he is cleary named on the British Military of Defence website shows his notability. The George Medal is not readily awarded, each recipient is therefore notable. Two other Ammunition Technician have received George Medals namely Kenneth Howorth and Gary O'Donnell Sinbadslimpig (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fails 2 and 5. But whatever. — Timneu22 · talk 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I was the closing admin of the speedy tag. The speedy tag was wrongly put by Timneu22 disregarding the claim of notability of the individual being a George Medal awardee. I removed the tag and prodded the article. The author and creator (User:Sinbadslimpig) removed the tag and added references. It's a new article; and I believe that this editor is attempting to improve the article. I would advise the closing administrator/editor to speedily keep this article, but mention that there should be no prejudice to an early future AfD in case the article is not improved from its current state (or even after the article is improved, yet doesn't qualify clearly on GNG). Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as an obviously ignorant nomination, as confirmed by the nominator's statement that he had "no idea why it wasn't" speedily deleted when the article already said that the subject was a George Medal recipient. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the nation's second-highest honor, and he received it once. Read WP:SOLDIER. — Timneu22 · talk 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I don't buy the argument that he passes WP:SOLDIER, especially criteria 2. I see the possibility that some of the above editors have confused the George Medal the George Cross, which is higher in precedence. Also, he's only been awarded once; there is a precedent of deleting pages for single awards of the Navy Cross and the like specifically because of the "multiple" in the guideline. I'm not convinced that he meets criteria 5 either; EOD is not intrinsically significant to the overall operation. I also don't feel that he meets GNG: while there are certainly plenty of good sources, they are all focused on the one event (one tour of duty, one operation, regardless of how long it actually lasted), thus WP:BLP1E. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to keep based on clarification of his notability regarding his bomb disposal count. It seems that he indeed has disposed of more IEDs than anyone else in history, and as an expert in his field, is notable in that right. Seems that he was more than just a BB-stacker as I initially thought. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (1) On a cursory look, I was able to find around 20 odd news reports from reliable sources ranging from Telegraph to BBC to Express that have given the individual, in some cases significant coverage, and in some more cases, non-significant coverage. GNG is quite evident. (2) WP:SOLDIER is only an essay and should never be used in Wikipedia deletion discussions considering that WP:BIO supersedes it by policy. Consequently, WP:BIO states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. In case depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." Note the word 'multiple', which means greater than singular. This is clearly satisfied given that this particular individual has been featured in a considerably large number of articles, and in some of them with quite significant coverage. Thus, even WP:BASIC is satisfied much comfortably, I should say by miles. (3) WP:ANYBIO, which is the primary notability guideline to be considered across Wikipedia for people getting awards, states that any person is considered notable if the person "has received a well-known and significant award or honor." To argue that the George Medal is not well known would be highly illogical, considering that the number of reliable sources linking to this medal go beyond even Wikipedia's GNG standards. (4) Finally, this article has been recently created and we should necessarily provide the author and other contributing editors more time to bring this up to GA/FA class. I am mentioning this because the more I have researched, the more I have realised that the biography of an individual "who has defused more bombs than anybody else in history"[2][3][4] simply should not be brandished in AfD discussions with a deletionist perspective. Deletion discussions are supposed to take place when the article does not qualify on any notability criteria or is a borderline/suspect case. And much of what I have seen in this particular nomination has disregarded almost every available policy and guidelines with respect to notability, lack of civility aside. This would be used by me as a case in point for future reference with respect to the nominating editor's contributions. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sure have an awful lot of things to say about me and this nomination. You are being insulting and uncivil, based on a one-sentence nomination. At least someone else agrees with me, so please calm down your tone. It's quite ridiculous. — Timneu22 · talk 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry for that impression. It's just that after seeing that you used the word idiot while replying to my message informing you about your speedy getting declined, I couldn't but help gather an impression. Just a month ago, you used the term 'Fuck prod', 'fuck it' and Prod sucks while replying to WikiDan61 and Atama, who had notified you about not re-adding prod templates if they are removed. To use such words against administrators and editors is not a good way to be proactive. Again, you also have many positive contributions too; so I'll leave this discussion here, as this is a deletion discussion going on. If you wish to continue this discussion, do kindly contact me on my talk page. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's avoid the argumentum ad hominem and stick to the article itself. The nature of the nomination itself is not in question; you should AGF and realize that if the nom was indeed in bad faith, there would not be any valid arguments toward deletion, which the closing admin will recognize. If you are having a dispute with the other editor in question, bring it up elsewhere.
      • Also, I'd like you to address BLP1E, which would override GNG and BIO (as well as its derivatives, BASIC and ANYBIO). And frankly, I'm insulted that you would say that WP:SOLDIER can be so brazenly disregarded; it's a very clear consensus opinion established over many years by experienced editors in high standing, and upheld in quite a number of deletion nominations. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Bahamut for your reply and your points. My replies are as follows to all your points. My comment above was only as User Timneu believed that the civility point had been raised simply because of the nomination; as you might have read, the background is quite clear now. With respect to your query whether there's a dispute going on, I don't believe so at all; it's an editorial opinion difference. And perhaps you missed out on the last line of my reply where I have clearly written that this discussion (of civility) should not continue here, but on my talk page - and I should mention here that Timneu has left a concise reply there. So my request to you also will be to not address this issue here as this clearly is not a place to discuss and re-discuss a civility issue. You mention there is an ad hominem argument that I am putting across. No, not at all, and I agree this deletion nomination should be considered on its own. To your next point whether this nom is in bad faith - I should not say 'bad faith' but surely 'lightly/not researched'. Look at a significant part of the nom statement: "Should have been speedied, no idea why it wasn't. Single-purpose account". This was written only a few hours after I had clarified very clearly to the nominating editor about why, as per policy, this biography cannot be speedied. To write that the editor has "no idea why it wasn't", is clearly disregarding a policy issue. And to address a newbie contributing account as "a single-purpose account" and requesting deletion giving that as a reason, is akin to sledge-hammering newbies. I'm making it a point to write all this here so that in the future, the nominating editor can realise there are editors/administrators who completely disagree with this approach of nomination.
        • Now to your point on the essay titled WP:SOLDIER. I'm sorry you feel insulted that I have advised that this essay should not be used in deletion discussions; but till the time WP:SOLDIER becomes a guideline, I should be extremely uncomfortable quoting it in deletion discussions. You perhaps might know that WP:SOLDIER was nominated to become a guideline, but failed to gather consensus, showing that the community does not back this essay's content to the extent of making it a guideline. Our notability guidelines have been specifically made to be used in deletion discussions and those are what I shall quote. At best, if you believe WP:SOLDIER does have it within itself to become a deletion-quotable essay, get it included in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates once it becomes a guideline.
        • Finally, your query on WP:BLP1E, which is a more logical argument than any other. As the author of the policy footnote that differentiated between WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, I have a few queries for you before I answer. Do kindly give me your views on the following:
          • If you believe WP:BLP1E applies to this biography, which singular event are you referring to? (that is, are you referring to his award ceremony event? or the event of his returning to Britain? or is it the event of his becoming the largest bomb defusing expert in history? or his sojourn in Moshtarak?)
          • This individual defused the most bombs in history. And he did this while at Moshtarak. Would you consider the individual's role major or minor in this event? Would you consider the event of Moshtarak to be major or minor?
          • Would you believe this individual is a high-profile individual or a low-profile individual? (as he has given interviews and video shoots to certain reliable sources/media channels, it'll be good if you clarify your view on this...)
          • Would you consider this individual's news coverage to be persistent or non-persistent? (I noticed his mentions initially in April 2010; now is September, and the Queen is supposed to award him in the coming period; therefore...)
        • I'll await your reply on the same. Sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that's how you feel about WP:SOLDIER, then we will have to disagree. Not much else to say there.
          • Aside from one point that I'll address next, these events are all so intrinsically and closely related that they are one singular event for the purposes of notability. The components of having been deployed, his EOD service over a period of months, his participation in a significant operation, return home, and award for his efforts are all sequentially dependant and interrelated. For comparison, I'll take Jason Dunham: his deployment to Iraq, his battles in Husaybah, his falling on a grenade, his death, his awarding of the Medal of Honor, and the actual presentation of the award to his next of kin are all likewise related. The analogy is not perfect; Ley's award was for service over a period of months, while Dunham's was for a single moment in time, and that the MOH is the hightest award while the GM is not even the penultimate. However, in both cases, the point is that these are all components of a single event.
          • You are correct about the distinction between BLP1E and BIO1E. Frankly, I don't care about how high- or low-profile the individual is after the event, because it's that one event that is relevent to the merits of notability. I don't think that privacy is a concern here. Likewise, the persistance of coverage is not in my mind relevant to the notability of the event covered; there may be a correlation sometimes, but I generally hold the opinion that the press is a poor judge of import and notability. That distinction is something I will have to keep in mind from now on, and I think you for pointing that out to me; however, I don't feel that it really impacts the argument here, despite my referrance to the incorrect policy.
          • The article says "he defused more roadside IED's than anyone else during his six month tour of duty", not "most in history", the distinction being that I interprete the former to simply mean that he had a higher count than his peers at the time, but the latter is actually quite significant, and is very notable in its own right. I hadn't read citation 1 (the Press Association article), and feel that this clarification actually makes him notable enough, and the other points are moot. I've changed my vote based on this new information, and feel that the article's lead needs to be re-worded to make this more clear. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep GM. That's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2010 (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.