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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Junkins[edit]

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

Self-promotional page created and maintained by the subject. No incoming links. Not encyclopedic. Subject deleted COI and other banners at the top of the page. I suspect this article qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:G11, but I'm not positive. walkie (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no RS. All sources are related to Junkins. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources may be related to him, but you have to assume that the university pages are somewhat accurate and reliable. Nothing links here is not a reason to delete a relatively new page. If it isn't encyclopedic then the article needs to be wikified, cleaned-up or needs to be copy edited. "Subject deleted COI and other banners at the top of the page." Walkie is not a reason to delete the page. Instead the COI should be replaced and the "subject" warned (see here and here for more information on user warnings).Callanecc (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key concern is simply the subject's lack of Notability, which certainly is a reason for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The university sources almost certainly are accurate and reliable; they are also not independent of the subject and thus useless for notability purposes. Nothing in the article suggests a pass of the professor test, and the sources are not sufficient for a pass of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Vote struck, per demonstrated pass of WP:PROF below. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Search of Google Scholar suggests notability by WP:SCHOLAR - Optimal estimation of dynamic systems by Crassidis and Junkins has 339 cites; Introduction to dynamics and control of flexible structures has 332 cites; Analytical mechanics of space systems by Schaub and Junkins has 312, Optimal spacecraft rotational maneuvers has 222. Many other papers have 50+ citations. I'm not exactly sure how this compares to other people in his field. Can someone check his score on Web of Knowledge or Scopus? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an individual who is going to fall on one side or the other of the WP:SCHOLAR special guideline. I have no opinion as to which side that would be, but that should be the angle from which this question is approached. ARTICLE RESCUE SQUAD might be of help putting this into sourced, encyclopedic form should it become clear that this is a significant scholar (as I suspect it is). Carrite (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems a clear pass of WP:prof - both by #1 and #5. Article clearly needs work. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Strong keep. He passes three of the WP:PROF criteria: #1 (e.g. nine papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar), #3 (National Academy of Engineering), and #5 (the distinguished professorship/named chair). Only one of these would be sufficient. The article needs cleanup to improve its sourcing and make it look more like an encyclopedia article and less like a cv, but cleanup isn't a good enough reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with an h-index of 27 on GS, a clear pass of WP:Prof#1 at least. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - For whatever it's worth, I am convinced of the subject's notability based on the comments here. I read WP:Prof before proposing this article, but this alone does not prescribe a course of action. One must also be familiar with what the community considers a "major institution", a "prestigious scholarly society", "significant impact", and so on; I was clearly not. The previous commenter cites h-index, but WP:Prof does not give an acceptable value for this and even recommends against its use. The article was clearly self-promotion and so I thought qualified for speedy deletion. Since my initial attempt to raise attention to this was swept under the rug, this seemed a reasonable course of action. I do not intend to propose many articles in the future and so do not intend to become fully knowledgable on this subject. Is there a place I can raise these concerns, besides the article itself, without officially proposing the article's deletion? If so, I will gladly prefer that route in the future. walkie (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice often given to newbies to a subject area (and we are all newbies to some parts of Wikipedia) is to lurk around for a while to learn the standards and conventions that prevail there before editing. If you are not sure, then the article talk page is the place to comment. Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep An h-index of 27 is quite substantial in this field and way above what we usually find acceptable here. In addition, member of a National Academy. The article should be checked for copyvio, though, it reads like it was copied verbatim from some website describing this person. Even without copyvio, this will need a lot of heavy editing to become even halfway acceptable. As it stands, a speedy delete as promotional would have been defendable... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then keep, and EDIT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Creator of the article is advised to read WP:Yourself. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Note an editor claiming to be the subject of the article blanked it with this edit. I've reverted, since multiple editors have contributed to this article (so I WP:CSD:G7 doesn't apply) and this AfD is ongoing. Sparthorse (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per WP:PROF which states "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences)". John Junkins is a member of National Academy of Engineering which is one of the four organizations of United States National Academies, the given example of National Academy of Sciences being one of them (source: Dr. John L. Junkins - Distinguished Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Royce E. Wisenbaker '39 Chair in Engineering).

Also, WP:PROF which states "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. He is the 1999 recipient of the Frank J. Malina Astronautics Medal of the International Astronautical Federation (source: [1]) and 2011 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Honorary Fellow (source: [2]). His views on the space debris was recently on New York Times article For Space Mess, Scientists Seek Celestial Broom.

Nominations can not be based on WP:UGLY or WP:UNENCYC, nominator should have done a WP:GOODFAITH research before nominating. Nimuaq (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I can see the nominators' concern on WP:COI. However, in its current form, I think this should no longer be an issue. Nimuaq (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2012 (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.