Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Einspanier

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. Tawker (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Einspanier

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

Written like a resume. I don't see anything in here that makes him notable. What do we use for geologists? WP:NACADEMICS? Doesn't meet that IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even aside from the puff-piece tone, the subject does not meet WP:PROF for sure, and cannot find any source that would go towards meeting WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think WP:GNG is more appropriate than WP:PROF for someone who seems to be more of a practicing geologist than a scholar of geology. But regardless, we don't have evidence that he passes either criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2014 (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.