Deletion of David Conn (judge)

Comment: Fails  and . I can't find reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, which are required to establish notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: subject fails  as there is not "significant coverage" directly regarding the individual. Additionally subject fails . The military tribunal may pass , however those individuals who are part of said tribunal appear not to warrant individual articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  and was a judge on a court that does not reach the bar of "members are significant". ''Could'' possibly be redirected to United States Court of Military Commission Review, but should be deleted first either way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: 1) |colonels are not inherently notable, and (2) the court on which he was a judge is not a major appellate court. He also fails
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: Non notable subject, Fails  and also Fails . The '''creator''' Geo Swan's arguement of  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:SOLDIER||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:N)

Comment: Doesn't  list certain occupations, which are considered notable, by default?  From #Politicians
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)