Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3

Leo J. Meyer namesake

The water is being muddied here by the inclusion of the list of putative sources that, according to the creator (Col. Meyer's son?) of the article, refer to a different Leo. J. Meyer. ("Please do not be confused. The other LJ Meyer is quite notable in his own right."1.) The presence of a huge but irrelevant list creates a misleading impression and at least one editor has been mislead by it.2 Thus, the list is neither relevant nor the hiding of it POV. I'm open to suggestions on what the heading should be but in the meantime I've changed it to something even more innocuous than false positive. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After verifying this with the subject, I've struck my comment about those sources. However, my decision that it should be overturned stands. Just for the record on the 'canvassing' accusation, I noted my disapproval of the deletion decision long before this DRV came up. Dreadstar † 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am working with the author to create another list of workable sources. Not every reference in that last was about a different Leo J. Meyer, but apparently many of them were. 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. Mrprada911 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]