Deletion of Robert Edward Hayhurst

Comment: lack of significant coverage per . If all that exists is the primary source document (the citation), that is not enough for a biography. Conversely, if significant coverage exists, then there is no reason why a Silver Star recipient can't be considered notable, however, unfortunately where it doesn't exist it is not enough to be considered automatically notable per . In the case of Roe it appears like significant coverage might be possible, hence my keep rationale for that article. I found the following: http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&biw=1280&bih=554&q=Elaine+Roe+Silver+Star&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&fp=7e7d4b90e5ca0f75 Google web search http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&biw=1280&bih=554&q=Elaine%20Roe%20Silver%20Star&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&fp=7e7d4b90e5ca0f75 Google Books search
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MILPEOPLE)

Comment: per AustralianRupert. The subjects of these articles appear to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore are likely not notable under the . Regardless, I have no problem with recreation of some or all of them at a later date if new sources come to light. Finally I think more context needs to be added to Rowe to make her notability clear
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: At first, I was tempted to be snarky and denounce a mass nomination, but closer investigation shows that these all were made in a series by one editor: {{user|Packerfansam}}. She seems to be a serial bio-stub creator (with a strong emphasis on sports players, but plenty of military bios as well). There is nothing particularly wrong with creating lots of articles, or even lots of stubs (in fact, that's commendable, IMO), but the volume and rapid succession does suggest that she's going off of a list or database without a lot of individual consideration to each person and thier suitability. I haven't seen any discussion about such a mass creation, so please let me know if there is one. I've said in the past that I strongly disagree with the provision in  that a third-tier valor award isn't enough, and I still stand by that conviction. However, these articles are essentially nothing but the text of the citation, which isn't enough (and violates  in trying to make a repository of citations rather than biographies). I feel that means we should '''improve''' these articles to something more significant by the end of the AfD, or else '''transfer''' the citation text to Wikisource, with one exception. The nominator himself casts doubt on the non-notability of Elaine Roe, and I think we should '''keep''' her as a significant female first. I've also notified Packerfansam of this AfD
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:NOT)

Comment: Not sure why Boggs has been withdrawn. The DSC is a second-level award, and this is not generally considered to make one notable either (although two such awards would). Only first-level awards make one automatically notable. And why should posthumous awards, Purple Hearts and POWs be notable? We're beginning to step into emorial territory here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M)

Comment: Individual articles of these multiple subjects are not sufficiently referenced by multiple reliable sources to pass , , or . If there is significant coverage found elsewhere to support each subjects individual notability, it should be included in the article, and that specific case should be discussed. Thankfully mention of these individuals will not disappear from the internet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:SOLDIER)