Deletion of Karl Ley

Comment: Looking at #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 Moshtarakhttp://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/CiedTroopsMakeADifferenceToOpMoshtarak.htm
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: I agree with Jimmy Pitt. While he may fail the Additional Criteria for  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 , as his notability is based on something that lasted for six months
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:BLP1E)

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)  is only an essay and should ''never'' be used in Wikipedia deletion discussions considering that  supersedes it by policy. Consequently,  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  is satisfied much comfortably, I should say by miles. (3) , 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"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11403730http://www.army.mod.uk/news/21733.aspxhttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/xexudf_george-medal-for-ied-clearance-ace_news 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:BIO||WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO||WP:CIVIL)