Deletion of Amy Bechtold (2nd nomination)

Comment: This nomination asserts the article lapses from the guideline otability (people) (aka ).   has a subsection devoted to more relaxed criteria for individuals who hold a national office, like legislators -- ''or judges'' -- otability (people)#Politicians.  Whether otability (people)#Politicians applied to Bechtold was discussed, at length, during the first AFD.  The closing administrator wrote
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by .  The sources offered are routine personnel announcements, trivial mentions and court decisions the subject herself wrote, making them .  None of the usual Google searches turned up anything useful.  The best I found was yet another http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20071070-10391704.html trivial mention
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: the subject is not a Politician, but a soldier. The '''creator''' Geo Swan's arguement of  also fails on ''"the |primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject of the article"'', because there is no coverage of the subject other than taking the name in the articles on proceedings.  is still relevant here as the subject is from military
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:N||WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: although the subject is a member of a notable judicial body, the subject herself is not notable per  or . There isn't significant coverage of the subject herself where she is the primary subject of the source, additionally she is primarily a JAG Officer and not a politician and as such SOLDIER is relevant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SOLDIER)