Deletion of John Mcgoff

Comment: per  which requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Having looked at the sources cited, I don't see that significant coverage, or it's there's some coverage but it's not independent, or it's not reliable. WP:Soldier (as I noted above) says that having his rank, the quality coverage may be out there but it doesn't say that GNG requirements don't have to be met; and if they are not met, then it fails the notability test
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Contrary to comments above, general officer rank of any level ''is'' sufficient for inclusion under . In any case, a Brigadier General ''is'' of O7 rank in US terminology; he's of OF-6 rank in NATO terminology
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: Notable.  applies equally to regulars and reservists. It was accepted that brigadier generals were on the border line, which is why the line was drawn here. I would argue that a reservist is more rather than less likely than a regular to be notable, as witnessed by his additional political activities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: Per ilitary History he would have to hold flag rank or O7 or above. A Brig. General is O6
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M)

Comment: Doesn't meet notability guidelines of either ilitary History or olitician
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M||WP:P)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)