Deletion of Ben Strickland (2nd nomination)

Comment: Does not meet  most coverage is routine and not in depth. The Navy Times article is not enough to write an article and the book that was self-published by its author does not meet our  requirements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: this . It is plausible that he was hard done by, but we're not the place to blaze the trail in |Righting Great Wrongs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:RGW)

Comment: Wikipedia's criteria for an article here are clear and are spelled out at  and . They require that the subject must have been written about in detail by multiple   sources. Those terms are carefully defined; they do not include blogs or self-published books, especially  books written to prove a point. (By the way, "self published" does not mean "published by the subject"; it means "published by the author", often through a "we will publish your book for you!" type process, rather than a regular, professionally edited publishing company.) The subject here does not meet those criteria. Apparently his claim of notability comes from his allegedly being demoted for whistleblowing, but the information in the article is sourced entirely to a single Navy Times article, which in turn seems to have Strickland itself as its sole source of information. This is neither independent or reliable. BTW the large influx of editors who have never edited here before, or not in years, makes it seem likely that there is offline  going on. Their arguments are passionate, but they do not appear to understand Wikipedia policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:POV||WP:CANVASSING||WP:independent||WP:reliable)