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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terraine Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. I find no significant matches in Google Books or Google News. The awards listed do not demonstrate the significant impact needed for the general notability guidelines. It seems unlikely that notability can be addressed with independent verifiable sources in the near future. PROD removed by creator (and various improvement tags deleted based on poor quality citations), so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: utterly non-notable vanity piece suffering from NPOV, tone, and probable COI issues. Certainly fails WP:MILPEOPLE and has nothing distinguishing for his military service (most of the so-called achievements are fairly routine and puffery). His poetry work doesn't seem significant either, but I can't speak too intelligently there. bahamut0013^words_deeds 02:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per Bahamut... this is really bad.Anotherclown (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bahamut - no evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2010 (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.