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 to delete, default to keep. Several references have been added during the AfD, and it is not clear to what degree these have been taken into account.  Sandstein  21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Van Horn Moseley, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has been tagged for lack of notability for over a year, and with good reason, for the subject isn't notable. Biography of an American officer in World War II whose greatest claim of notability appears to be (1) being one of several people who were together made a composite single character in a John Wayne movie, and (2) being awarded the Legion of Merit. Neither of these confer notability, individually or together. There are four references, but one is a directory, two are likely obituaries, and the final is a regimental history: if these confer notability, any military officer whose death was noted in a newspaper is likely notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. He isn't looking notable to me, but I'd say a few good (as in, from decent sources and of a decent length) obituaries would confer notability. Google News throws up a couple of articles, but nothing much. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He was certainly very well decorated, but I don't think that means he was notable. However, I think that this one falls only just below the threshold. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject does not appear to be notable. As stated above, there may be information available to change that opinion but I couldn,t find it. --Stormbay (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Forget the movies and the medals. Here is a man who not only and commanded, trained and but parachuted into Normandy[1] with the 502d Parachute Infantry Regiment[2] of the 101st Airborne Division in the pre dawn darkness of D-Day 1944. He refused to be evacuated, commanding his regiment from a 2 wheeled cart for two days. A colleague, Robert Sink of Band of Brothers fame, has a better written and more complete article but is in actual fact no more notable. The article on Moseley should be strengthened not deleted.Hmose (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary: there's a full biography from a reliable source that's linked to Sink's article, while there's nothing of such a sort for Moseley. Simply doing what you say he did (and I'm sure you're correct) doesn't make him at all notable, unlike receiving significant coverage as Sink has. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteMerge Fails the notability test at WP:BIO, which is the relevant determinant of notability at Wikipedia.Keep --Orlady (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind based on information below. The father is notable and the information about the son could be merged into the article about the father. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind yet again. It now appears that he's notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment People leaning towards delete should be doing a google book search. There seems to be good deal of sources related to this subject. [1] and [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm confused. Those search results identify him as a general, but the article says he was a colonel. Are these the same person? --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two people with this name: the father, General George Van Horn Moseley (1874-1960), and son, Colonel George Van Horn Moseley Jr. (1905-1976). There are reliable sources for both of these men. riffic (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The lack of notability does not detract from the honorable service to his country by this individual. The story/character that shows some notability is not the subject, however. --Stormbay (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no lack of notability, this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. riffic (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The sources are probably sufficient. Tons of books have been written over the airborne operations in Normandy, so I suspect that all regimental/brigade commanders in the British and US airborne units would pass WP:BIO. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tons of phone books have been written for my county since I was born, so we have many reliable sources to verify my father's phone number, but that doesn't make him notable. Would these "tons of books" really amount to significant coverage? Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Contrary to the original comment, Van Horn Moseley is not just 'any army officer'. He was one of the Army's first airborne officers, commander of one of the U.S. Army's crack Parachute Infantry Regiments, of perhaps it's most famous Division, the 101st Airborne (the Division which this writer happens to be the Museum Director of). Moseley was severely injured in the jump, and was described by witnesses as having such a severe broken leg that the bone protruded from his trousers, yet he refused medical attention, unsuccesfully tried to capture a horse to direct his troops from, and actually did direct them from a wheelbarrow. He only relinquished command after the Commanding General of the Division ordered him to do so because of his intense pain and the severe injury. When Wikipedia keeps articles of such trifling nature and transitory interest as the 'biographies' of obscure, minor cartoon characters, it is a travesty that an article about a famous war hero of real WWII history be omitted. This seems opposed to everything Wikipedia stands for. Granted, the article is currently weak in content and deserves expansion. I would add that one of the iconic photo series of the D-Day operations, and even World War II, is that of General Eisenhower accompanied by this same Colonel Moseley reviewing his paratroopers just prior to the invasion, and this photo should also be added to the article. Tacitvs (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article now meets all notability guidelines. The article has been expanded. Seven citations were added in the year prior to its nomination for deletion. Numerous additional internal and external references have been added in the past four days with more to come.Hmose (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.