| Revision as of 14:50, 13 January 2021 editMztourist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users72,121 edits →Alan B. Banister← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:54, 13 January 2021 edit undoJohnpacklambert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers600,248 edits →Alan B. Banister: DNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Fails ] and ]. While his rank satisfies #2 of the SOLDIER ESSAY, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS, just being a Rear Admiral is not inherently notable without significant achievements/coverage ] (]) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC) | Fails ] and ]. While his rank satisfies #2 of the SOLDIER ESSAY, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS, just being a Rear Admiral is not inherently notable without significant achievements/coverage ] (]) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 14:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] (]) 14:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.] (]) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:54, 13 January 2021
Alan B. Banister
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Alan B. Banister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. While his rank satisfies #2 of the SOLDIER ESSAY, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS, just being a Rear Admiral is not inherently notable without significant achievements/coverage Mztourist (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)