Deletion of John Junkins

Comment: He passes three of the  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I can see the nominators' concern on . However, in its current form, I think this should no longer be an issue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: an editor claiming to be the subject of the article blanked it with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Junkins&diff=481718216&oldid=481716785 this edit. I've reverted, since multiple editors have contributed to this article (so I :G7 doesn't apply) and this AfD is ongoing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: For whatever it's worth, I am convinced of the subject's notability based on the comments here. I read rof 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 rof 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P)

Comment: Search of Google Scholar suggests notability by  - ''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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SCHOLAR)

Comment: with an h-index of 27 on GS, a clear pass of rof#1 at least. Nominator is advised to study rof before making further nominations in this area
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P)

Comment: This is an individual who is going to fall on one side or the other of the  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SCHOLAR)