Deletion of Matthew Hoh

Comment: I definitely see significant coverage by reliable sources (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/1027/p02s09-usmi.html, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/1028/matthew-hoh-resigns-to-stir-debate-on-afghanistan-mission-accomplished, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29iht-edkeillor.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8426712.stm, etc.) but it looks like all that coverage falls under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The refs given are to good sources - Washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html, US Dept of State http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/oct/130972.htm, Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/1027/p02s09-usmi.html. My reservation is that this might violate , but it does look as if people are picking up his resignation as a notable event in the history of the war in Afghanistan, with Hoh apparently being the first official to resign over the issue - http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13944018/Matthew-Hoh-Resignation-Letter, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/27/matthew-hoh-a-great-american-patriot/, http://www.scribd.com/doc/21683575/Matthew-Hoh-first-US-official-to-resign-over-Afghan-War
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is a diplomatic position that we would normally judge by olitician or similar standards. And on those it's absolutely not even a question. The fact that an internal diplomatic issue has come up is hardly an indication of notability, but rather a news event. If you think this is a newsworth event that warrants inclusion then that's one thing, but there's absolutely nothing about this article as is that suggests the most basic notability criteria are met
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)