This man was a United States Army officer during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. This very long article, likely created and principally authored by a relative, is more a life story than a biographical encyclopedia entry. The problem is that unless I've missed something, there's no notability in it. The external links/external sources provide no information about Meyer specifically, only about the groups in which he served/commanded and a Smithsonian folklife exhibition. There's a claim that some of his scrimshaw work was featured in a book, but the title and/or ISBN of the book isn't listed for verification.
If all Bronze Star, Distinguished Service Medal, and other combat award/medal recipients other than the Medal of Honor are notable simply by receiving those decorations – and I don't believe that's the case – I can reach no other conclusion than the article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Meyer's main claim to fame is for having been recognized by a military museum as one of only 303 to have won threeCombat Infantryman Badges. He won one in WW2, one in Korea, and one in Vietnam.That said I would like to see some details about what his actual military and combat experiences were in each of the wars: how was he in combat? Or was being in theater sufficient? The article on the badge implies actual combat. Few were in that role over such a long period.Edison (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless independent source can be found that shows specific interest in this individual (i.e. not just a name on a list). CitiCat ♫ 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Although an accomplished and even distinguished military man, does not appear to have a particular claim to notability. Even the one thing Edison is saying is unique is shared by three hundred others. As for whether "few" were field-promoted looeys who became colonels in Vietnam, I expect that quite a few of the senior field officers in Vietnam had similar careers. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Sigh, I really hate to do it (despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:Pokémon test) but, if we have room for hundreds of Pokemon characters, hundreds of cartoon episodes, and hundreds of random songs by garage bands, we have room for 303 men who were triple winners of the Combat Infantryman Badge and who were recognized by a military museum for that accomplishment with a marker and a ceremony. Thus three isn't an arbitrary number (as in what about four time or two time winners).Edison (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We have room for them, sure, but there is nothing specifically notable asserted. I see no reason to regard it as a significant award demonstrating notabilty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Unfortunately, I also find no evidence to indicate notability criteria have been satisfied. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I read this article, and I note what other editors say: "there's nothing notable about him." In one single incident, I think that's true - there's no VC or Medal of Honor, etc. But its the accumulation of medals across three wars (ie - multiple significant occurances) which I think means that Meyer easily passes WP:BIO if you read it fully. Are we saying that 16 independent references doesn't make "multiple independent sources"? And further that the award of 40 medals across 20 promotions doesn't satisfy the additional criteria of "significant recognized awards or honors" or a "widely recognized contribution"? There may not be a single book or a great GHit reference that says he is significant (remember, he came out of the army in 1969 - served another three years in intelligence which is unlikely to be referenced), but across 16 references his record proves WP:BIO. This is one article which, if we are an encyclopaedia and follow WP:5P, then this is the type of encyclopaedic content we should be striving to create and keep - its not original research, its well referenced, its not indiscriminate: and as a result it is encyclopaedic. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)