Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen R. Hines


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Glen R. Hines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not seeing any evidence the subject of this article meets our notability requirements. Please note that although the article has issues, including orphan, self-ref, etc, those are not the reasons for this listing. The article appears to be promotional in nature, and was written entirely by User:Grh17 and User:Grhines2, which suggests a strong COI. Killer Chihuahua 15:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - NN. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination: I'm not seeing any grounds for this person passing WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete does not seem to pass WP:BIO. A fine officer I am sure, but just another cog in the military justice machine who happened to catch cases with known defendants.  EricSerge (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Solid, but not extraordinary career. Not notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the nomination; he's just a military attorney. I was considering whether we could merge this content to one of the cases he's handled (some of which, we have articles on) but I don't think that would really work without being a distraction from the primary subject. Lord Roem (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.