Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Glover

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 keep. Courcelles 03:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Glover

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO and not much in the realm of RS or N either. Has been starving for citations since 2010. Herrabackfromhiatus (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Zero notable links on both Yahoo! and Google.Keep - The article has now cited two articles, but I think it would help if more sources were added. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see sufficient reason for a speedy deletion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets AUTHOR and ACADEMIC. [1] [2] Christopher Connor (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY, or else significantly improve on the current sources. WP:ACADEMIC (same as WP:PROF) requires the subject's impact to be substantiated by independent reliable sources, and I'm not impressed either by the current number of sources (two) or their depth (seem to be just passing mentions of the subject). Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources that show the subject clearly meets AUTHOR and PROF. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As recent edits to the article show, the subject definitely meets ACADEMIC (and, now it's properly set out, the publication list is impressive) - though the article can probably be substantially improved if someone now uses the "Further reading" list to help develop it. PWilkinson (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does a really bad job of explaining his notability, but chairing a European Commission panel seems like cast-iron notability to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2011 (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.