Deletion of Raul Escribano

Comment: Passes , which means that he is presumed notable. Date of birth is often hard to find for military BLPs. People tend to be nervous about publishing it these days. (Athletes don't get a choice!) Nothing wrong with an article being created from Defense sources, or by a subordinate, which in fact we encourage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: I'm not overly concerned about the use of "official" documents to verify certain things in the biography, but such sources are not independent of the subject and aren't useful for demonstrating notability.  What we do have that is independent isn't very much.  I do disagree most strongly with the notion that we should throw the  out of the window in favour of "presumed" notability for certain classes of living people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: subject of the article in question meets . Moreover, subject meets  receiving |significant coverage in reliable sources such as http://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/locales/nota/10puertorriquenosclaveenelejercito-2042071/ here, & http://www.usfk.mil/Media/News/Article/993194/officer-embraces-the-borinqueneer-spirit-through-respect-for-those-who-came-bef/ here. Is there significant work to be done to improve this article; sure, but see  and . Furthermore, SOLDIER IMHO is equivalent to /N. While CTA suggests that the USFK.mil is a primary source, it is not written directly by the subject of the article, and thus appears to be 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:IGNORINGATD||WP:DINC||WP:WPBB||WP:SECONDARY)