Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Monk MBE


 * 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 There is no argument made that the article's subject is notable, beyond receiving the honor of Member of the Order of the British Empire. As noted by several, receiving the MBE does not invoke the subject-specific guidelines of Notability (i.e. inherent notability). Mandsford 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

John Monk MBE

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable biography. No evidence of multiple secondary sources. Only coverage is a local news piece about his MBE honor. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - One of the important functions of the British Honours System is to acknowledge the notability of long-term but low profile public service.Opbeith (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Low profile" = not notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the Govt website www.direct.gov.uk, the 2011 New Year Honours list recognises outstanding achievement and service across the whole of the United Kingdom You seem to be saying that the UK Honours System is an exercise in self-contradiction? Opbeith (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Or Wikipedia kno0ws better? Opbeith (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Per this and this and this and this and ... (I could go on), the MBE award is not, per se, a sign of notability. Notability is indicated by significant coverage in multiple sources.  Many people receive the MBE with little or no note beyond a blurb in their local newpaper, as is the case with Mr. Monk.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that, I guess, the rule is that Wikipedia knows better. Opbeith (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't think it is a case of "Wikipedia knows better". Rather it is a case of whether "outstanding" is always notable.  There is no question that a person who receives the MBE has done some wonderful work or another.  They may be rightly proud of their honour.  However, that doesn't necessarily make them a valid subject of an encyclopedia article.  One could equally argue that anyone who graduates Summa Cum Laude from a top university is outstanding and may be rightly proud of their achievement.  However, that sole fact will not merit an encyclopedia article either.  Merely performing outstanding things is not the criterion for inclusion.  Being noticed by the public at large in a significant fashion is the criterion for inclusion.  And, to be honest, the MBE does not represent "notice by the public at large".  It requires but a single nomination, and review by a rather low-level functionary in the government.  It isn't as if the Queen herself is reviewing the credentials of every MBE recipient.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the fundamental question is "what is the valid subject of an encyclopaedia article?", and in particular of an encyclopaedia such as Wikipaedia which prides itself on its aspiration to openness and comprehensive scope. Notability is a guideline to prevent abuse of the "vanity publishing" kind, but in practice appears to work out as a mechanism for promoting a version of exclusivity/elitist values.
 * The Honours System is intended to operate in a way that recognises important contributions to the community that have not necessarily attracted general publicity. When individuals are nominated, the notability of their contribution is investigated and evaluated - whatever the level of functionary conducting the review it is conducted in accordance with an objective procedure that could legitimately be claimed to be rather more robust than Wikipedia's procedures. The award of an honour is in effect an official certification that the individual has made a notable contribution to their community/society.
 * To regard recognition of the achievement as having anything to do with the individual's pride in what they have accomplished is to misunderstand completely the system works and its purpose. Even the award of honours within the government service is based on an objective review of the notability of the individual's contribution to the (officially defined) concept of national welfare.  The aim is to acknowledge and honour exceptional contributions for which the individual will not have received other forms of recognition because their contribution has been made within an anonymous system.  The award of honours for community service also recognises that notable achievement does not necessarily attract media attention and because it is out in the community may well be overlooked by the administrative structures that take account of the contribution made by officials.  It brings official "quality control" to the recognition of discreet notability.
 * By imposing its own rigid guidelines in a way that overrides, and to be frank seems to seek to discredit, the criteria used by the Honours System, Wikipedia/the body of its contributors is asserting that Wikipedia's own definition of notability is a better/more valid one. It may be necessary for Wikipedia to nail its colours to the mast of superficial value in order to operate in the complex environment that it does, but we shouldn't be under any illusion that the outcome of Wikipedia's procedures is an affirmation of values in the same way that the Honours List is, and those often exclusive/elitist values often seem at odds with the principles that Wikipedia professes. Opbeith (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are what they are. If you don't like them, you are free to start a campaign to change them. But this is not the proper forum for that crusade.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply answered the points you made in answer to my comment, Wikipedia knows better. I know how pointless it is to challenge the accepted wisdom, but responding to your misinterpretation is not a crusade. Opbeith (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The REASON that an MBE cannot, of itself, allow an article to pass the notability guidelines is that if the article doesn't pass WP:N's requirement for "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" then the result of that is that there is simply not enough verifiable information to write an encyclopaedic article about the man, regardless of what awards he may have received. If you can't write more about him than his name, date of birth, and the fact that he won an award, then by any reasonable view he can't be considered notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Requirement or guideline? I think you've missed my point about the central issue of conflicting criteria.  As far as the article's current content is concerned, there's more to be written about him based on local coverage, but bear in mind that it's quite hard trying to fill gaps in more than one article at a time while the deletion machine rolls remorselessly on, and the article was only created on 8 December 2010. Opbeith (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the statement by User: Opbeith, "As far as the article's current content is concerned, there's more to be written about him based on local coverage".Hillcountries (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - WHAT local coverage? The only sources in the article are both non-reliable, and no one above has linked to any reliable sources, and I can't find any of my own accord. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Meridale Youth and Community Centre is a registered charity. Whether or not that makes them "reliable" is a moot point but it does suggest that when they reproduce the Mablethorpe and Sutton leader coverage of the Centre's 40th anniversary at http://www.meridale.co.uk/index.php?page=2&section=2 it's unlikely that they have decided to forge the coverageLocal coverage scanned from the Louth Leader supplement (LL is NE Lincolnshire circulation weekly). Opbeith (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The question is not whether the coverage in the M&S Leader is forged or not (clearly it isn't), but whether that coverage amounts to significant coverage in multiple independent sources as required by the guidelines. Coverage of local events by local newspapers generally does not amount to significant coverage.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, WikiDan61, you're diverting the argument elsewhere. One thing at a time, please. That was me telling DustFormsWords about the local coverage that s/he was so excited about not being there.  I'm not trying to make out that this constitutes significant coverage, because if you remember, the point that I was trying to communicate to you was that Wikipedia rejects the notion enshrined in the UK Honours List principle of recognition for long term community service that low profile achievement is notable.  It seems quite possible that there will be minimal significant media coverage of Mr Monk and other individuals who have given substantial service to a local community over a long period (disregarding the BBC and the London Gazette) but that is the whole point of the Honours List principle, media coverage is not an absolute indicator of notability.  As I said before, there may be sound practical reasons - preventing abuse and misrepresentation - why Wikipedia adopts exclusive guidelines.  But the UK Honours List offers another valid principle for recognising notability. If Wikipedia rejects it, like it or not that's a statement that Wikipedia's principles are incompatible with those of the UK Honours List.  When you rigorously impose one set of principles and reject another rather than accepting that they can coexist, you're saying that for the purposes in hand one set of principles is better than another (by "you", I don't mean you personally but the Wikipedia participants who believe that UK Honours List criteria are not acceptable).  I simply don't see a logical way round that.  When Wikipedia expunges individuals recognised as notable by the UK Honours List it is applying its own set of values in preference and implicitly rejecting those embodied in the UK Honours List procedure.  If we have to accept that John Monk isn't good enough for Wikipedia when he is for the UK Honours List, well that's the rulebook.  But then can't we be honest about the reality embodied in that rulebook?  As I said, Wikipedia thinks it knows better.  Have the courage of your convictions, at least, and acknowledge that your nomination defines your Wikipedia.Opbeith (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm a "he".  I'm not convinced M&S Leader is a reliable source, and hence can't provide verifiability and therefore is probably of no use in writing an encyclopaedic article, whether or not the topic is notable.  Even were it a reliable source, it doesn't provide significant coverage of this man, and the linked version of it appears on a most definitely non-reliable site.  (I don't mean it's unreliable in that it's dishonest, I mean that it's unreliable in that we can't be sure it's not prone to honest mistake, presenting information out of context, or running strange practical jokes.)  But thank you for taking the time to explain.  BTW, "notability" is not a criterion for receiving the Order of the British Empire, or any one of its objectives, and to the extent that there ARE UK honours aimed at notability, they are using "notability" in a different sense to Wikipedia - it would refer to civic notability, but we're talking about encyclopaedic notability.  They're different concepts and hence there's no reflection on either party in them not agreeing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DFW, I don't argue with you that the source might be considered "non-reliable" in the sense you you use of "the reader not being able to be absolutely certain". Most sites that might be described as reliable are nothing of the sort.  Even major news sources tend to be riddled with inaccuracies that the reader who knows something of the subject can detect.  "Reliability" is a convention - we accept that the reliable source is unlikely to be making errors in bad faith or inordinate quantity until we're proved wrong. Here there is no real reason to assume non-reliability in relation to the subject matter, and the essential point here is that information is available and in a form that is unlikely to be significantly untrustworthy.  (I'm now referring simply to the detail of the article, not the validity of inclusion)
 * I do disagree that notability is not a criterion for the award of honours at all the various levels in the UK Honours List. In his introduction to the most recent report on the UK Honours system (accessible via http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Honoursawardsandmedals/DG_067909 ), Sir Hayden Phillips, the report's author, identified two strands of contribution to national life, service and distinction. In both "the standard, and the consequent criteria, should be high".  With regard to notbaility of service, which is what we're arguing about with regard to John Monk, Phillips says, "In terms of service an honour should not just go with a job well done or because someone has reached a particular level – but because an individual has in plain terms ‘gone the extra mile’ in the contribution they have made." The different levels of award broadly reflect local or national contributions, and levels of achievements. "Judgements are not moderated by the Civil Service alone [in the procedure Phillips outlines on the webpage at the URL I've given] but substantially informed by a large number of independent and distinguished experts in a variety of fields of national life."
 * Whatever the occasional failings of the UK Honours system it cannot be said to be substantially unreliable. Its reliability is ensured by the accountability of a transparent system with well-established procedures for confirming notability.
 * So the award of an honour signifies the formal taking note of a level of achievement that is out of the ordinary and presence on the UK Honours List signals that robust criteria have been satisfied. The question is whether those criteria are inadequate for Wikipedia's purposes, and if they are is the reason essential to Wikipedia's nature?
 * Once the pragmatic issues of misrepresentation and frivolity. are dealt with by establishing a robust procedure any other "encyclopaedic" policy is about establishing the character of the encyclopaedia - the scope of its inclusivity.  There is nothing absolute about "encyclopaedic notability". It's simply a term describing the capacity to satisfy the notability criteria that serve a particular encyclopaedia's definition of its purposes - what it chooses to include or exclude.
 * If Wikipedia is unable to live with the kind of notability established by a socially representative, publicly accountable body whose procedures are painstaking and reliable, that is a policy choice. If Wikipedia cannot live with the presence of John Monk that is the nature of Wikipedia's encyclopaedic character. But then contributors should be honest and accept that they have decided WP's character should be exclusive and elitist, based on arbitrarily chosen principles.  It is simply a decision that WP should not be as open as it might justifiably be.


 * @Opbeith: You may be correct in asserting that the UK Honours System represents a de facto assertion of notability; that only select individuals notable for their service to their communities are so honoured. However, countless discussions on Wikipedia have countered the argument that an MBE is inherently notable.  If you feel otherwise, you should bring the topic to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to see if you can bring about a change in the guidelines.  However, the guidelines being what they are today, Mr Monk's article fails to meet the criteria.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiDan61, there's a distinction between the words "countered" and "resolved".
 * Truly. I had no intention that my remark would resolve the discussion.  I merely intended to keep the discussion grounded in Wikipedia policy.  It is Wikipedia's policies that govern Wikipedia's content, not the British Honours System's.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.