Deletion of Daniel Somers

Comment: The person has acquired "significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources" (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us/soldier-suicide-note CNN, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/25/internet-doesnt-do-nuance-humanity The Guardian, http://gawker.com/i-am-sorry-that-it-has-come-to-this-a-soldiers-last-534538357 Gawker, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346882/Daniel-Somers-suicide-The-tragic-suicide-note-Iraq-War-veteran-PTSD-felt-abandoned-government-discharged.html Daily Mail, etc.), which makes him pass . And yes, his suicide has indeed made him notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Wikipedia's guideline  is met handily with this biography, having so many reliable sources commenting on the man and his words that went viral. Regarding the heartless "every dead vet" comment, Wikipedia can and should have articles about every one of them that meets notability guidelines. Certainly Somers does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: May I ask that participants in this discussion review the major changes made to the article yesterday and consider whether their !votes still stand as they are? I think the !votes are currently 7 to keep and 5 to delete (counting Gbawden's proposal for deletion as a !vote to delete), which doesn't seem like a consensus at all, but a new review of the highly revised article might result in a clearer consensus. Again, I don't know if there is a proper or formal way to make this request. I'm sorry I'm dominating this discussion, but this subject became important to me through this process, and I am very interested in resolving it clearly and fairly, even if the clear consensus is to delete. It should now be clear that the sourcing for historical  is roughly as thorough as it is likely to get (assuming Bananagramwinner and I were also reasonably thorough - the "first whistle-blower" statement that Bananagramwinner found ties this in to the larger Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014|VA scandal of 2014), so if this doesn't cut it, then so be it. I have never participated in a discussion involving single-event notability or persistence, so I don't know if these newer sources have clearly established the case or made it clearer that, if this is all we get, then it fails one or both tests. Thank you again for your tremendous patience
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: this appears to be a case of . He is notable only for his suicide. All of the sources are a rehashing of his suicide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: His notability is achieved solely through his suicide.  All the coverage noted was for the event, not the person.  Seems that  applies and the article should not stand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: and move.  This suicide was obviously notable due to the impact it had on the VA.  For that reason I don't think  applies here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)