Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3

Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedy deleted on Feb 3 as advertising by Eliz81 (now on wikibreak); immediately recreated as stub by JLMadrigal; requesting history-only undeletion so that history of prior article (to which I contributed) can be used for unstubbing current article without an ad-style bias. Should be noncontroversial. There may be potential controversy over whether the current article (with or without history restoration) would be subject to deletion, but that's not the scope of this request. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no objection to this that I can see. DGG (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, we need to rationalise the present situation where the article has been recreated without the previous history. BlueValour (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Leo J. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have not spoken to the administrator who deleted this article, because she is on an indefinite WikiBreak. I have a few reasons for contesting this delete. 1. There was no consensus for deletion. 2. The subject is referenced in third party sources incl. the National Infantry Museum, Smithsonian, and numerous military publications through out the years. These will obviously need to be properly cited but there are too many of them to delete based on verifiability. 3. The only criterion for notability is that the subject is referenced in third party publications, which he clearly is. If we address any of the various sub-guidelines, we could infer that his 3rd award of the Combat Infantry Badge and his status as a Parachute and Special Forces expert made him the subject of the articles over the years, along with his artistry in scrimshaw. These are three separate accomplishments, all of which are supported by second and third party sources. User:Meyerj has a copy of the article in his user page. This article should be rescued from deletion and improved. MrPrada (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I have read the article in Meyerj's userspace and reviewed the original afd, and after careful review I feel the article is appropriate for Wikipedia provide that the article receives a thorough cleanup (there are several instances of sentence fragments and such in the article body) and better sourcing through the use of inline citations; I would recommend that the article be immediately listed for a MILHIST peer review if reinstated here to get a better idea of how to improve it. On the issue of notability: the MILHIST MOS outlines criteria to be considered with regards to notability within the armed services; of which the article satisfies one criteria clearly and two criteria in a broad sense: as an officer it appears from the article that he commanded a substantial body of troops (2), he is included in secondary works published (4), and according to our article here his combat infantryman badges are the highest award in there field (1). For me, this constitutes the minimum threshold needed to maintain an article here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I appreciate and understand your views. However, we are not here to judge the merit of the article since this is not AfD2. Our role is simply to decide on the propriety of the AfD close not to substitute our judgement for that of the AfD participants. BlueValour (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I reliase that, I am just very new to the deletion review process (to my knowlage this is the first time I have commented here neatrally). Given this I elected to treat this as I would an afd, although I gather this was incorrect, and for that I apologize. You are free to edit my comments to comply with the policy(s) on this page, whatever they may be, and I will make a point to observe this page and its commenters to get a better idea of how to go about commenting in a deletion review so as to aviod this mistake the next time I arrive here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The article is temporarily re-created at
  ^T 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - Essentially the debate was a judgment as to whether the achievements met
  WP:BIO. Taking into account the nominator, there were five editors in favour of deletion and two for keeping. Whilst this is not a vote, that certainly represents a consensus. In my view the AfD was properly closed, which is what we are here to judge. BlueValour (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Technically, there have been a number of edits and revisions to this article since it was deleted more than a month ago. It isn't necessary to seek the overturn of an AfD discussion if the newly reposted article includes more references to establish notability/verifiability or allay other concerns listed be participants in the original AfD. I think the CSD tagging was, therefore, premature and only if it was deleted again would a DRV really be necessary. But this DRV was started first, and since there is no other option but to overturn or endorse the original AfD - I'm going with overturn.
    ^T 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn. As I stated above, I do not believe the AfD was properly closed. As BlueValour pointed out, it is not a vote, and the decision should be based on the evidence alone. As Avruch and TomStar have pointed out, the article met the basic criteria for inclusion, met WP:V with secondary and third party sources, and also the WP:MILHIST notability guideline, which includes and yet supersedes WP:N. I defer to TomStar's expert opinion on that guideline, as he is a duly elected project coordinator in his second term. MrPrada (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn One of only a 303 to have been awarded the combat infantryman badge three times, compared to the thousands that have been awarded the Medal of Honor. Sometimes
  WP:BIO is best ignored, it is only a guideline and not holy scripture. RMHED (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - Meets the MILHIST MOS notability requirements. Also, per TomStar81, MrPrada, and RMHED. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article has a marked lack of citations, which should be remedied. This would probably resolve any nagging notability issues. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - so according to your records, an army colonel who commands 3000-5000 soldiers is less notable than a university club debater and a local city councillor?? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Three-time receipients of the combat infantryman badge have their own wing in the U.S. National Infantry Museum. Also, although Meyer was Special Forces and not a Ranger, all three-time recipients of the CIB are automatically inducted into the Ranger Hall of Fame. The only other qualifier is Medal of Honor recipients, and previous battalion commanders and sergeant majors. The army also held ceremonies up into the 1980s to honor the 200 or so surviving CIB (3rd) awardees. MrPrada (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion, AfD had no clear consensus for deletion, subject seems notable per above links the distingushed service and awards given that are above the norm and satisfies
  Dreadstar † 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse close was in order - consensus existed to delete the article. How did it get recreated? That seems out of process - an admin needs to step in here and re-delete the article. Eusebeus (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Consensus may have existed (the vote was four to three if you count the article's creator who did not vote in the AfD but has solicited comment from neutral parties), but the logic was flawed so it should never have been closed. Also, there was no rationale provided at close. An article cannot somehow meet WP:MILHIST and not meet WP:N, they are inexorably connected. As for the recreation, that I do not know, when I started the DRV today the article wasn't there, then a few hours later, it was, with full history etc., so I assume an administrator recreated it for the DRV process as I stated above.

The arguments presented in favor of deletion were:

• WP:V
  "the title and/or ISBN of the book isn't listed for verification".

 Done Now fixed, see above.

• WP:N
  "Delete unless independent source can be found that shows specific interest in this individual"

 Done Also fixed above.

• WP:N
  "Delete. Although an accomplished and even distinguished military man, does not appear to have a particular claim to notability"

POV. #1 3 Combat Infantry Badges, #2 rising from private to Colonel, #3 Directing the Army Center for Military history, #4 being published numerous times, #5 being mentioned in 20+ secondary/tertiary sources, are all sufficient on their own to claim notability in my book, (especially #s 4 & 5).

• WP:N
  *"Delete We have room for them, sure, but there is nothing specifically notable asserted".

I believe the three wars, per WP:MILHIST, or the scrimshaw work at the Smithsonian, are specific.

• WP:N
  "Delete. Unfortunately, I also find no evidence to indicate notability criteria have been satisfied".

I disagree, there was evidence enough in article when it was delete, and a cursory glance at the sources above would seem to support that reasoning.

Again, I feel that its impossible to somehow meet WP:N without meeting WP:MILHIST, or vice versa. Since most of the MILHIST admin/coordinators have agreed that it meets MILHIST, I stand by my DRV-request that the original deletion was flawed. MrPrada (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per the excellent evidence of notability provided above. John254 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Technical ground is that the last strong keep argument in the AfD was made just an hour before close, so other editors did not have time to consider it. Also as the article has evolved since the AfD and the issues there are being addressed, it would need to be reconsidered anew for deletion anyway. Ty 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Appears that additional info is now available to verify notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there seems to be enough material for notability. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I believe this topic to be notable. --rogerd (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn In the AFD the strength of the arguments for keeping outweigh the numerical superiority of "Delete" !votes. Edison (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deletion I left a reasoning on my close in my talk page over a month ago. There wasn't 16 sources in the article, there was only 5 and a bunch of unrelated external links. Three of the five sources are other wikipedia articles explaining what the metals are, the other two are passing mentions. Sourcing was a concern that was never met in the AFD. There was obvious consensus to delete. As for the current sources, again it seems like a bunch of unreleated links, or passing mentions, there isn't anything that can be used for proper sourcing. Also note the obvious
  WP:CANVASSING by Mrprada, which should be taken to effect in this DRV. Secret ^account 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am slightly concerned by the allegation of canvassing. My message was a friendly notice written to improve the quality of the discussion and invite experienced WP:MILHIST editors, who would be the authority on notability in this case, and the original contributors to the article and the AfD the piece, to comment, including User:Secret

. In no way did I state my personal opinion in an attempt to influence the outcome.

On that note, I do concur with secret that the current sources seem like a bunch of passing mentions, which need to be addressed per User:Roger Davies. However, per User:Tyrenius (who was not notified of the discussion), there are technical grounds to overturn the AfD. MrPrada (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not notified of this discussion either. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion According to the
  talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. Per a message left on my talk page by User:Meyerj, the US National Infantry Museum figures 303 recipients of the third award of the Combat Infantryman Badge during the period December 1941 to December 2007, and the US Army Center for Military History number of 575 Medals of Honor for the same time period." Therefor, the 3rd award of a CIB is in a sense more notable then the MOH, which is a standard of auto-inclusion. MrPrada (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with that. The CIB is automatically awarded to all infantry who are sent to a warzone and has been awarded millions of times. The MoH is awarded for acts of extreme bravery and is rarely awarded. As such, the issue is whether infantrymen who are sent into a war zone 3 times are automatically notable. Personally, I don't think so. For our purposes, the fact that there seems to be only one reference specifically on this person, and it's a list of names, while there are easily dozens of different references which can be used for all MoH winners, clearly indicates that being awarded the CIB three times isn't generally regarded as being a more significant achievement than winning the MoH.

talk) 08:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I would disagree that the CIB is automatically awarded. Commanders have strict requirements and (at least in modern times) limit the distribution of the award to rigorous quotas. As a recipient of the CAB, I can speak to that myself. I would agree that the 3d CIB isn't generally regarded as more significant then the MoH, but it is still interesting that there were fewer awards of the 3d CIB then the MoH from 1941 to 2008 (apples to apples). However, I believe that this individual is notable for more than just the 3d CIB award. MrPrada (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nth award of a trivial badge is not notable. the first award of the highest one in the US Services is. It's not by being present on the field that soldiers get notability, its by what they do there. DGG (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIB is not a trivial badge. Ask any soldier, including my self. Aside from the CIB, you have Meyer with a Distinguished Service Medal, Soldiers Medal, 3 Bronze Stars, 2 Purple Hearts, 1 MSM, 1 Joint Commendation, 3 ARCOMS with V, four Presidential Unit Citations, and a Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Bronze Star, no easy feat. I still do not see how this fails notability for WP:MILHIST, per Edison, and Tyrenius. MrPrada (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, well done to the closing admin for seeing through the smoke and mirrors. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article - The guy is a colonel and only one step down from being a general. Obviously WP is not a reliable source, but the article on US colonels says that they command 3-5,000 men, so they are responsible for the life and death of many soldiers. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The long-standing convention is that general-level officers and above are automatically notable, but lower ranks have to prove that they meet
  talk) 07:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How many soldiers have risen from Private, to Sergeant, to Sergeant Major, to Looey, to Chief Warrant Officer 4, all the way up to Colonel, with a

Army Distinguished Service Medal(usually reserved for Generals only) and 3 CIB's along the way? Meyer may be the only one. MrPrada (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment It's worth reiterating that the article seems to only contain one reference on Meyers, and it's a list of names.
  talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. I have placed calls into the 95th Division Historian and the national infantry museum. I am expecting more sources on Meyer later this evening or tomorrow. Most of the third party sources, e.g., division magazines, Army times, etc, do not maintain online archives. MrPrada (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to thank you for your deliberations regarding the Wikipedia article Leo J. Meyer. The article was written with a strong hope that it might give inspiration to others to capture a piece of history which we are about to lose contact with forever. Just yesterday there was an event at the US President’s residence honoring the last remaining World War I veteran at 106 years old. (roughly 16 years older than Leo Meyer) We are on the brink of losing the source information for the “Greatest Generation” America has ever known. The US is not alone in this loss; all nations have had their contributors to their societies. Traditional paper encyclopedias could not, practically speaking, publish all of the information for history’s sake. But a Web based system can, as long as the server owner supports it. The US WWII Memorial has a Web based registry which permits us to list the contributions of the people in and out of uniform who contributed to the US during WWII. The US Army National Museum in conjunction with the Army Heritage Foundation has a similar registry of the American soldier at http://www.armyhistory.org/armyhistorical3.aspx?pgID=867. Both of these “Web” based systems are a tremendous resource for the collection of historical information and are looking for all of us to contribute to. To paraphrase a line from the George C. Scott movie “Patton”, “answer what did you do in the great World War, daddy?” With, “well I shoveled S--- in LA but I also did this too.” I had hoped that the Wikipedia project might be one more asset in the collection, preservation and presentation of that first or second hand account historical information about our grandfathers and grandmothers, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers. They are slipping away fast.

I fully appreciate the Wikipedia Editor / Administrator concerns about meeting stated guidelines for articles published. However, I believe that there should be a Wikipedia destination for the collection of original work that meets the minimums of the Wikipedia:List of guidelines and allows for the telling of a persons history and contribution to the society and events of their life time. Meyerj (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You mention that this is original work. What is the source of it? Did it come directly from Col Meyer and, if so, would you mind telling me what your relationship to him is? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from my talk page:

Leo Meyer was my father. After he was inurned at Arlington National Cemetery I was asked by some obscure long lost family member I had never met before, but whose side of the family apparently held him in some esteem, about his unit information. I was not prepared to answer that factually so I began researching his records, and putting two and two together and I learned a lot about the little giant I called Dad. I could remember events from his quite extensive photo album/scrapbook, but anecdotes from other family members contributed to a rather lengthy biographical document that I provided to all of the family. One short episode... Around 1960 while a major stationed at Ft Dix, he was detailed to escort the Egyptian delegation during the International Military Boxing Championships (CISM). I attended some of the fights with him. While at an official function at the O'Club he, at 5'8", 135 pounds went up to an official guest of the games, James J Braddock, AKA "Cinderella Man" and told the former heavy weight champion that he was a "Bum". He did this tongue and cheek. Taken aback, the much larger man asked why and my father told him how he had lost a weeks pay, $27, because of him, when he beat Max Baer. Braddock enjoyed the story and asked him to repeat it to his wife. It was his full of "Moxy" persona that enabled him to go through Jump School in Vietnam at age 51, a feat that had not been done (or documented) before by anyone in the Army at that age. And he did it because he was assigned to Special Forces and not airborne qualified which meant he was not authorized to wear the green beanie until he became airborne. He had volunteered to go to Vietnam in his 28th year. So most of what you see there is taken from my original much larger document without the side stories. Additionally quite a bit of information can also be found at the National Army Museum Soldier registry that was taken from his official records.

While in Vietnam LTG Frederick Weyand, who was the top dog in Vietnam after Westmorland, made a special visit to the 5th Group Hq because he had learned that Dad was assigned there and they went back to 1950 in the 7th Infantry. Leo J Meyer was anything but an obscure Army Officer.

Besides being a good staff officer he was a tremendous artist as the Scrimshaw displayed in the article demonstrates. That photo was taken in my living room of one of the whale's teeth that appear in the Bowen book.

Is it original work or just the first time compiled and edited in this manner and depth? I must admit that I do not like copying information from any source and merely citing the source. Why not just post the source?

You may have gathered from my comment of this morning that you Wikipedians need to work toward collecting the history that has been left out of paper encyclopedias because of cost. That is unfortunately editing history and keeping the full story from being told. And I understand cost. I am also not interested in personal notoriety but I never tried to hide my name. Meyerj (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion I'm the nominator who started this whole hornet's nest. I think I found the article while going through the COI bot reports.

  First, about the notability and verifiability of the article itself: I understand the desire to collect history and preserve first hand information. I also suspected the article was created as a tribute by a son or daughter, and that's confirmed in the message above. I just lost a parent, and I understand the loss and hurt felt by the article's creator at the loss of his father. Nonetheless, the encyclopedia cannot

  WP:BIO.

  Second, I agree that AFDs should not be closed as a poll, by counting the yeas and nays and banging the gavel. Our job is to read the article, evaluate its history and the other articles that link to it, read the talk page, _then_ read the discussion and use our judgment and knowledge of Wikipedia policy and consensus to close the discussion by making a decision. Based on the discussion and the article's state at the time, I believe the closing admin appraised these things appropriately.

  Again, I have the utmost respect for this man's service. I'm certain he was a wonderful man and a great soldier. Unfortunately, I think this material is more appropriate for a blog or a memorial web site instead of Wikipedia. KrakatoaKatie 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion. The article doesn't meet the basic requirements of
  WP:OR whether the subject meets a particular notability standard or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hootenanny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page recently existed, yet there is no record of its deletion in the deletion log; no reasons or debate are evident. The hootenanny is a valid and important part of folk music history, and should remain in Wikipedia. "Hootenanny" now leads to a long disambiguation page which includes music albums and television shows. The original article about the American hootenanny tradition and its leaders is not to be found. This article should be restored. 143.229.181.205 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You seem to be referring to this edit, which changed the article from an unsourced definition/history with ancillary material to a proper disambiguation page per
  our manual of style for such pages. I think there's enough there for an article (perhaps hootenanny (event)), but it would require sourcing. In any case, deletion review is not the place to discuss article edits; you should start with the Talk page. Kudos for knowing to check the deletion log, though, even if it was the wrong place to look in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Though the Anon won't be able to
  be bold and start that page. If they return maybe someone can create a stub for them. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]