| Revision as of 04:05, 22 August 2007 editCorvus cornix (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,190 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:31, 22 August 2007 edit undoGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Comment''' -- any chance the nominator could return here and offer a fuller explanation for the nomination? ] 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' -- any chance the nominator could return here and offer a fuller explanation for the nomination? ] 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **Sure. He's non-notable. ] 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | **Sure. He's non-notable. ] 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***I am going to ask you, a second time, to give a fuller, more meaningful, explanation. ] 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>—] 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>—] 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 04:31, 22 August 2007
Robert Preston (military lawyer)
- Robert Preston (military lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable Air Force officer. Corvus cornix 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems fairly notable within the context of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Needs citations, but plenty are available. -Hit bull, win steak 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, military lawyer involved in some of the most significant (for good or ill) military proceedings in a generation, and externally notable for refusal to participate. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as notable lawyer: there seem to be plenty of reliable sources available. Jakew 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- If notability means anything, then this guy is, IMO, a highly notable whistleblower. Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -- any chance the nominator could return here and offer a fuller explanation for the nomination? Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. He's non-notable. Corvus cornix 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you, a second time, to give a fuller, more meaningful, explanation. Geo Swan 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. He's non-notable. Corvus cornix 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)