Deletion of John W. Overton

Comment: meets the presumption at  based on points 5 & 7, while the amount of coverage in the article appears to meet the GNG, IMO. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTRACK)

Comment: Passes  #1 apart from anything else, with the Navy Cross and the Distinguished Service Cross. Not sure why editors seem to be saying he doesn't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: I added sources from the track and field side and have more to add.  He clearly meets  by being a multiple world record holder.  He was also multiple national champion and collegiate champion.  All that before we get to the war hero stuff
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSPORTS)

Comment: Seems he passes GNG and  - holding world records. Voters should be mindful that SOLDIER creates a presumption of notability yet doesn't exclude notability for soldiers not meeting it (either a soldier or via non-soldier activities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSPORT)

Comment: Nearly passes , as he was awarded ''two'' second-tier gallantry awards. But I believe he does pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:NSPORTS)

Comment: Passes  as a world record holding athlete. I have noticed a very concerning pattern, as well, where the world has been turned upside down and supplementary notability standards, intended to...supplement...GNG in cases where notable topics might have difficulty demonstrating GNG compliance, are being considered a ''higher'' bar than GNG, i.e. "it passes GNG, but fails SUPNG, delete as not notable". This really needs to be something that is, for want of a better term, stamped out, as it actually is a genuine threat to the integrity of Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSPORTS)