Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Keonjian

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. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Keonjian

Edward Keonjian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

1)Edward is not notable enough to be included in wp.2)The article is unreferenced and carries links to Original research or broken links Notedgrant (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This Article: This is a fantastic overview of one of the most important engineers in the field of microelectronics. His autobiography ^[1] details and supports eveyrthing in this article, and I as his granddaighter can attest to the information in the Personal Life section. CKeonjian (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Being his grand daughter can be considered as Wp:coi.Besided that wp:npov is jeopardized .The references citied are from an autobiography or dead links or personal websites hosted on geocities WP:REF .Edward is not notable WP:NOTE enough to have an article to himself on Wp--Notedgrant (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is that book self published? Corpx (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Apparently it is an autobiography (a book he wrote praising himself)--Notedgrant (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Check the response below the publishers are mentioned there --Notedgrant (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - More, very easy background research before AfD would have revealed more arguments for notability. For example: Publisher: Sunstone Press; 1st edition (December 1996) ISBN-10: 0865342520 ISBN-13: 978-086534252, and http://www.nlburkeart.com/i_busts_detail_001.php
  The possible COI is not an argument in this debate. --Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Yep I agree with that coi has nothing to do with this article .I just have a doubt on the notability of Edward Keonjian ,Thanks for this link but I do not think an autobiography is reliable enough BTW The consensus is on your side I may have to withdraw my AFD :) Good day --Notedgrant (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - could certainly use better refs (I just added one) and a few cuts, but a million-selling book (assuming sales are accurate), an invention in the Smithsonian and a bust at the Univ. of Arizona (both verified) establish notability in my opinion. Station1 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the article has now been significantly expanded, including more refs and a bibliography of his works.--Kudpung (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being an IEEE Fellow gives him a clear pass of WP:PROF #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IEEE fellow. Published autobio and newspaper obit should give enough verifiable detail too. That's a sales rank in the millions, not a number of sales btw.John Z (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this is notable enough, and I found it very interesting about how he was buried alive. An interesting article. Room for improvement. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. passes WP:PROF criterion #3. Salih (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is it confirmed that he was a Fellow of the IEEE? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2009 (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.