Deletion of Dee Ann McWilliams

Comment: Goodyear's analysis of the sourcing is spot on. Moreover, setting aside even questions concerning whether these sources are independent, none of them except the press release from the White House represent substantial coverage.  is an ''essay'' and ought not have anything like the weight of  in guiding discussions such as this, and it has not been demonstrated that this individual passes  -- at least, not as far as I can tell, sterling and laudable efforts to find sourcing notwithstanding
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  for lack of substantial coverage from independent,  sources. Sources provided in article are useful for informational purposes, but nor for notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: meets  (aka ) criterion #3; stars on the shoulders = assumed notability.  and  also met. Doesn't matter that "the article is all about a non-notable post-military career", |notability is not temporary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:MILPEOPLE||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: subject of the article clearly meets , and as a Flag/General Officers within the United States Armed Forces are appointed positions which require congressional approval
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE)

Comment: It was relisted per a request on my talk page because  is an essay and not a notability guideline.--v/r
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE)

Comment: She was a major general. |Of course she's notable. No reason given by the nominator for her lack of notability in any case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE)