Deletion of John R. Schindler

Comment: per  (the dick pic stories),  (no evidence of academic impact; certainly teaching at the US NWC or any other institution of higher learning is not enough by itself for notability),  (not a major national figure so his alleged minor wrongdoing is not enough for notability) and  (the sexual scandal aspect of the story fails both the balance and attack clauses of STYLE and many of the sources are far from reliable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:PROF||WP:PERP||WP:BLP||WP:BLPSTYLE)

Comment: per  and per DGG's arguments
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: meets , ie. "have received significant coverage in multiple published4 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,5 and independent of the subject.6
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: I find the arguments of DGG and The Master convincing enough. Given there clearly isn't enough coverage of him to write a complete biography I can't see how he pass  at any rate either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per , notability outside "dick pic" event is not established by reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Meets  with media discussion of his work and ideas. Often cited as a "leading expert" or "expert" by media.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/22/french-intelligence-sees-steep-rise-western-jihadi/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/how-surveillance-state-insiders-try-to-discredit-nsa-critics/281941/http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/More-than-4000-European-jihadists-fighting-against-Assad-336501http://atlanticsentinel.com/2014/12/putins-holy-war-a-challenge-the-west-underestimates/ Wikipedia's right to be forgotten applies to people wanting privacy, not to those who're active self-promoters in the media but don't like what Wikipedia says about them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This article is basically a tabloid gossip column entry, not an encyclopedic article. People are pilloried every day on the internet for stupid nonsense, are we to have articles about every Tom, Chris and Sally who has written a book who then showed someone a nude selfie? Pathetic. And Gawker isn't a reliable source, so those ought to go. How many other of these sources would fail ? And while we're at it, let's discuss . People claim this guy is notable enough to have an article here based on the  guideline. So, is he notable for his writing or for his penis pics? If he's notable for his writing, then the penis pic garbage is flagrantly in violation of UNDUE and needs to go (and after that, what content do we have?). If you're claiming he's notable for the penis pics, then the article needs to be deleted per BLP1E. Please pick one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:UNDUE||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: per the spirit, if not the letter, of . Dan Murphy's comments are well-taken, in particular the point that this article will inevitably serve to ensure that the highest Google hit for this individual's name will focus on an unfortunate but hardly noteworthy incident in his life. No one really deserves that&mdash;certainly not in this case, where there is no issue of public trust or other rationale for publicizing the embarrassing details. The subject's wishes (as conveyed by Dan Murphy above) also weigh heavily in my view that this article should be deleted; we're causing avoidable distress to someone for essentially no reason. It's not like deleting this article would compromise this site's goal of providing the sum of human knowledge; we'll be just as close to (or far from) that goal without this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)