Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Moore (EITC)

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 delete. Courcelles 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (EITC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was dePRODed following the addition of a reference proving the subject's existence. Notability, such as for example, a military award or remarkable conduct or action in war, does not appear to have been asserted. Kudpung (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added a PROD a while back ago, but never went back and checked up. I guess that the article creator removed the PROD and added a dubious citation. I still don't see any evidence of notability.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree. If the Wikipedia were to have an entry for every brave, but unawarded soldier, sailor, or aairman killed in action - even in modern times - , the entries would run in to the millions.--Kudpung (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability (and I would want a better source to confirm existence, given the one quoted appears to be a novel...) Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can confirm that the V.A Stuart book is a novel (I'm reading it currently). Moore receives quite a few mentions in factual accounts of the Cawnpore siege (as per this search: [1]), but I'm not sure that even then he would be independently notable. Perhaps a redirect to the Siege of Cawnpore article might be warranted? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2010 (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.