Deletion of Karl Kjer

Comment: It should be deleted, just a nonsense topic and non-notable. I would like to go for Deletion of it under following reasons: , , , , 1, , , , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G1||WP:G4||WP:G7||WP:G7||WP:G11||WP:A7||WP:A11||WP:BLPTALK||WP:BLPEDIT)

Comment: But only in accordance with , which would most efficiently mean removal of factoid and locking said page from future vandalism, which as the history indicates, is bound to occur again.  Under , "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources."  The subject is notable as indicated by others as they pass  and , but that is all they are notable for. If we adhere to  "include only material relevant to the person's notability" then the disparaging factoid is irrelevant to their notability.  I am confused how one could link said factoid, even if it did mention his resignation to the subject's reason for -low-profile- notability in the first place.  This page is about the subject's professional life, which is notable.  It is not about the subject's personal life.  If it were, then by the same logic we should write an entire biography about them including when he was born, the elementary school he went to, what he studied, important childhood life-changing events, his fear of spiders, why he chose what he studied in school, whom he married and when, his other interests and hobbies, his favorite ice cream, and an unlimited amount of other such details, but it doesn't because those arn't related to his notability. Just as about no other page discusses an individual's personal life, this one should stick to what he is notable for.  That's why  exists.  Additionally the secondary source is not credible.  It is a local newspaper which says the subject "allegedly" did such and such and therefore contradicts itself - participants in this debate are encouraged to read it for themselves
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:NPF||WP:NPF||WP:PROF||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NPF||WP:NPF)

Comment: as holder (however briefly) of an endowed chair, the subject clearly meets , regardless of the criminal conviction factoid. And notability doesn't cease just because the subject doesn't hold the chair anymore. The COI editor's concern about  seems ridiculous. Historical facts are not defamatory. If there are reliability concerns with the source, they should be taken up on  rather than edit-warring in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:LIBEL||WP:RSN)

Comment: The article in its nominated state seems neutral, non-sensational, and properly sourced. I don't think the crime rises to the level of notability for all the reasons cited in the nomination, but that's irrelevant because it's not what the article is about. He passes #C1 for highly cited publications and #C5 for (albeit temporarily) holding an endowed chair
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Subject clearly passes  by having once held a named faculty chair. I can not help but to feel a bit of schadenfreude when an individual writes a COI biography and finds that they can not control the content. {{pb}} That said I think we need a source which directly ties the conviction to his resignation before it may be included in the article. The resignation letter is a primary source and the article noting his conviction does not refer to his faculty position. Without a direct linkage I think BLP requires we not include a misdemeanor conviction with no documented link to his notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)