Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Knightly


 * 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The result was withdrawn. Clearly I've made a blue here. Appreciate the constructive feedback. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Edward Knightly

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not convinced that the subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Additionally, there are COI and copyvio issues. Jenks24 (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject certainly passes WP:PROF, on several counts. Being an IEEE Fellow is enough to satisfy WP:PROF. Very high GS citabilty results, several significant wards. Frequently mentioned in the news media as an expert on wireless communication. There are also examples of specific in-depth coverage, such as here . Regarding COI/copyvio issues, by looking at the article history and the article talk page, it is clear that last year somebody from the subject's department created this page, while being new to Wikipedia and not quite knowing what they were doing. So they just tried to copy-paste the material from the subject's bio profile page at the department, creating a copyvio issue. While that situation was frustrating, the editor in question has not edited since July 2015. If they do return and resume problematic editing, they should be given a hard slap first, and then a block. But hopefully that won't be necessary. The mistake here was a typical newbie mistake. The COI issue does remain, but since the subject is clearly notable, I think the article deserves to stay at the end. Nsk92 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets Notability (academics). He was elected a fellow of the IEEE in 2009 and is a department chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talk • contribs)
 * Question. Does the nominator think that the subject's GS h-index of 59 has any bearing on his notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Snow keep. Passes multiple WP:PROF criteria as already detailed above. If there are copyvio problems they are not so serious as to require deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Nominator is referred to WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Easy keep due to h-index, IEEE Fellow designation. I noticed that he was promoted to full professor at Rice ten years ago. Rice is no mom-and-pop institution, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many full professors there that fall short of WP:PROF. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:30, 18 June 2016 (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.