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.
Clear Keep as a general officer per
WP:SOLDIER and as a minister per
WP:POLITICIAN. I appreciate these details weren't in the article when it was nominated. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 02:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
SamSing! 07:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep; the defence minister easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. I strongly doubt that Gbawden would have nominated this for deletion had it been in its current condition when it was nominated. Thanks to Soman for improving the article significantly, as it definitely didn't demonstrate notability when it was nominated.
Nyttend (
talk) 14:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, as a general officer and as a nation-states minister/secretary of defense/war the subject is notable per
WP:SOLDIER &
WP:POLITICIAN.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 05:34, 19 February 2015 (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.