Deletion of Leo J. Meyer (2nd nomination)

Comment: People keep referring to "non-military publications" being needed or otherwise saying that military publications aren't useful here.  I'm not seeing many of these documents as primary sources.  Sure, an official site for all awards is primary.  But Stars and Stripes or the Army Times can't be.  So where in policy is this argument coming from?  The best I've seen here is a crossways reference to the ''essay''  and even reaching out to that essay seems like a huge stretch.  Can anyone clarify here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Places of local interest (WP:LOCAL)

Comment: per Swatjester. No, we don't have to create 303 other articles, that's a  argument, as is the argument that other people with more awards don't currently have articles. Notability is established by multiple |reliable sources, which we have. Verifiability is also established by reliable sources. The article needs work, but deleting it would fly in the face of core policy. It was undeleted at DRV, now let's improve it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:RS)

Comment: Like the first AfD and the DRV this discussion is getting caught up with editors' personal views of this person's carreer. According to  the relevant criteria for inclusion is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article does not demonstrate that this person recieved such coverage - and it seems pretty clear that every possible source has been consulted given that the article discusses his artistic hobbies. The references are unacceptably vauge (eg, to issues of newspapers and magazines rather than the actual articles) and the minor facts they're being used to prove suggests that none of them is anything like an in-depth profile of Meyer, which is needed for them to establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I'm the sad sack who started this whole kerfluffle with my AFD nomination in January. In my nom statement, I tried to address the article's problems without disparaging Meyer's honorable service, and it's tough to do that while at the same time arguing that the CIB does not alone make one notable. I don't think I was successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_J._Meyer&oldid=185297363 When I nominated it, it wasn't so much an article as a glowing hagiography, complete with retirement vacation destinations, at least one family photo, and his hobbies. The 'Notes' section contained only wikilinks. The ELs to museums, with the exception of the National Infantry Museum, take publicly-submitted material – in Meyer's case, material submitted by his own well-intentioned family – and publish it, which is not exactly what  has in mind. In the current version of the article, one of the seven refs is to the number of American military personnel, and five are for one fact: he earned his parachuting wings. Is that what we mean when we say an article should be 'well-referenced'? In addition to those problems, it seems the only unit he directed was a drum & bugle corps, and I don't think that counts as a 'substantial body of troops'. We have Winnie Gibson|article upon Aaron Bank|article on military officers of equivalent or lesser rank who have met our standards for notability during their service and/or after their retirement. Some of their articles are well-written and some are not, but their subjects are notable. Yes, Meyer served with fidelity and integrity, but he does not meet the #NOTE|MILHIST notability standards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:MILMOS)