Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meehan III

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 no consensus. Bucketsofg 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meehan III[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. I believe this page was mainly created out of a fondess for the TV mini-series Band of Brothers. However from a military stand point, Meehan didn't do anything of note except briefly serve as a company commander. Even in the mini-series his character portrayal was very brief. This fails WP:BIO --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm loathe to delete an article about a veteran killed in combat, especially when they're portrayed in a miniseries like Band of Brothers. However, I don't think he's particularly notable -- by this standard, virtually everyone killed in combat during WWII qualifies for inclusion. --Haemo 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dysepsion, on your userpage, you have quoted "Despite wiki's criticisms I believe in the philosophy of why this site was created: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing. ~ Jimbo Wales"" I consider this article part of the sum of all human knowledge. Thomas Meehan III's experience during the Battle of Normandy was a fate met by many men that day. That doesn't make him remarkable. What does make him remarkable is that among World War II historians, his is a well known name - 63 years after he died. Sure, Band of Brothers helped spread his name, but it is regardless known. FOr those reasons, I say keep. --Daysleeper47 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry, but among WWII historians, his name is not well known at all. Before, Stephen Ambrose's book Band of Brothers, the only other time that he is even mentioned, albiet briefly, was historian Mark Bando's history of Easy Company 506th. I also don't see how that quote on my userpage has any bearing on this discussion. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Doesn't receiving a purple heart make somebody mildly notable? Corpx 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Stuck based on the following comment. Corpx 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are millions of purple heart recipients, which are given out for any combat injury. (Remember, John Kerry received three and isn't even noticeably disabled.) The E Company was chosen to be the "Band of Brothers" that Ambrose wrote about not because of the exploits but because it was ordinary, and because of the availability of documentation and personal material. That doesn't make the individuals in the unit notable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he became notable due to book and miniseries, even he wasn't notable as a soldier. Someone who sees the miniseries is going to come here looking for more information about the guy, so let's provide it. Capmango 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capmango's arguement Corpx 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band of Brothers. Not notable enough for an article of his own. Clarityfiend 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between the book, miniseries, and of course real life, he's sufficiently notable. Someone reading the book or watching the miniseries may wish to look him up. JJL 02:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band of Brothers Not notable outside the context of the book and movie. Killed before entering combat on D-Day, heroic but not notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison 19:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my knowledge, there is no burden of notability in any context for inclusion in Wikipedia, other than the interest of the author(s). I suggest that there be no minimum requirement for continuance other than the interests of site visitors to access information. Ultimately, they may have even more to share.

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.