Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Riley


 * 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. clear consensus after relisting  DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

James J. Riley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability, created by an account blocked for sockpuppeting, and only edited via the subject of the page (WP:AUTO) PapaMichael (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:PROF as holder of a named professorship, member of a national academy, the National Academy of Engineering, and fellow of a number of scholarly groups. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-promotion written by author; reads like a CV and does not make notability evident. His own personal website and journal papers are not substantive coverage. About a fifth of all professors in the College of Engineering at UW have endowed professorships and there are are well over 150 endowed professorships at the UW medical school alone; to call this evidence of notability is laughable. Reywas92Talk 05:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - content appears to have been cut-and-paste copied to User:James.joseph.riley/sandbox/James J. Riley and User:James.joseph.riley/sandbox/James J. Riley - draft. ansh 666 20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Easily passes notability in academics,WP:NACADEMIC.
 * Criterion 1 - Article subject  has a substantial number of scholarly publications published in peer review journals with significant citation rates. Google Scholar is showing over 9600 citations, H-Index of 43, and I-10 index of 87..


 * Criterion 3 - Article subject is a peer-elected member the National Academy of Engineering.   (page 19)
 * Article creator was not blocked as a sock at the time article was submitted thus this is not a reason for deletion. Contributing to an article about oneself is discouraged, not prohibited and not a reason for deletion. If an editor feels the article needs a cleanup, that can easily be done. IMO the article doesn't seem promotional and pretty much a run-of-the mill article about an accomplished academic.  CBS 527 Talk 20:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know why the original creator's block was brought up in the nomination. If it does have any relevance at all, then it deters from the argument for deletion: the editor in question is, a well-known deletionist. – Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF on multiple counts, including being a Fellow of the American Physical Society . It could stand cleanup, for sure (and I've started doing a little of that), but that's not what AfD is for. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF, and AfD is not cleanup. PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:PROF, also the current version does not seem to be promotional and content is sourced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2018 (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.