Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Alan Glennon

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 of the debate was keep. Babajobu 06:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John_Alan_Glennon

Not encyclopedic / nn. Ucsbalan 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - perfectly encyclopedic, of interest to cavers (which I'm not). Well-sourced, notability on web, published author. Camillus (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 02:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing to suggest this doesn't belong ++Deiz 02:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. From the article alone, Glennon has achieved enough of note to warrant a page. --Kinu 02:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although none of the work got much attention from general public like the nominator, some has been significant to cavers and geologists. Sufficiently notable within a non-trivial field to warrant inclusion, including some feature coverage in magazines and the AP feed. Barno 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as strong as they come ppoi307
• Keep This appears to be a perfectly legitimate article.  (aeropagitica)  09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. I only find 146 Google hits, lots of those are Wikipedia mirror sites. It looks like a nice article (vanity?), but there's no meat. This person, as most students, are involved with a lot of different research projects. But it's the leaders of the projects who are notable, not the tagalons. Ifnord 15:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have worked with Alan, so I don't think I'm supposed to vote. However, with respect to the previous comment, Alan Glennon did lead the cave and geyser projects (not just a tagalong). try google "Alan Glennon" Geocal 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, notable and encyclopedic per coverage and notable acts. Adrian Lamo ·· 19:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with lfnord. A web search turns up little that supports notability. Eusebeus 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is too suggestive of a vanity page. Any valuable information can be shifted to other entries. --Varenius 20:27, 6 February 2006 (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.