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.
Non-notable. There seems to be nothing extraordinary about this soldier, or at least nothing extraordinary enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
yandman09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete Normally if there is the slightest bit of encylopedic value, enough where it could possibly be useful for any kind of research, I am all for inclusion, but there just isn't anything here.
Ratherhaveaheart18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Non-notable. There seems to be nothing extraordinary about this soldier, or at least nothing extraordinary enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
yandman09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete Normally if there is the slightest bit of encylopedic value, enough where it could possibly be useful for any kind of research, I am all for inclusion, but there just isn't anything here.
Ratherhaveaheart18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)reply
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.