Deletion of John Theon

Comment: his notability is quite clear.  He has been quoted, featured, or mentioned in the sources below.  I believe that these sources speak for themselves and that he objectively meets .   Many of these refs were in the article but they were http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Theon&diff=268981241&oldid=268958988 removed because they "obfuscated" the original source.  I can list several more sources if people think these aren't enough. How the Senate committee minority, much less any of the sources below, can be considered not "independent of the subject" is beyond me.  Many news organizations reporting on something confer notability to it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Per nom. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under . Citation impact http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sauthors=%22John+Theon%22 seems to be low. As for the point made by DGG,  criterion #6 refers to highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society, which is not the case here. Otherwise any other unit head at NASA or a comparably prestigious organization would qualify automatically. Regarding possible notability under , this looks like a classic ; among other things, the subject does not seem to have enough of a research record to be considered an authority in the field
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:1E)

Comment: Unless stronger grounds for notability can be found. He might well (in fact, probably does) deserve a mention in articles on global warming controversies, but he does not seem to me to deserve an article of his own, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)