Deletion of Kristoffer Domeij

Comment: passes  even though fails 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: I reviewed all of the evidence presented both within the article and also conducting my own BEFORE search. This person does, indeed, fail . In my mind this essay holds as much credence as all the SNG's that give subjects unfair advantages over other subjects like . I digress, in looking at the sources a few things jump out. #1 - One argument here is that he is notable solely due to the length and number of combat tours. That may be the case on military bases and in the minds and hearts of those who knew him and value his service. Wikipedia, to be frank, is indifferent to feelings and emotions, only facts matter based on policy. I did not take into account his service record length or number of tours. #2 - I counted every reliable source that repeated the same information almost verbatim as one source as per criteria for multiple intellectually different sources. This still leaves the subject with coverage in reliable sources that may be similar but do contain intellectually different material as well, on top of the reliable sources that are wholly intellectually different. #3 - The subject received significant coverage in the reliable sources that did include him. Therefore, setting point 1 aside and taking points 2 and 3 into consideration, my assessment is that the subject passes criteria found in  for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:NPROF||WP:N)

Comment: another in a long line of well-written, adequately sourced articles on long-dead soldiers dragged to AfD ( is an essay) with the same couple people voting to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: fails  and . Number of deployments is completely unreferenced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG)