Deletion of Earl Killian

Comment: The patents themselves do absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability, per Wikipedia's guidelines.  At most, they indicate that an invention is probably something that has probably not been patented before. They do not judge the inventor, filer, and they certainly don't indicate notability--actually, they don't even verify that the person had anything directly to do with the invention, merely that they are the one to have filed the patent.  Many of the other sources don't meet our standards for significant coverage.  And, of course, the bios on him in various companies/advisory boards not only don't establish notability, they shouldn't even be in the article because they don't meet  as self-published sources.  The mentions of "thanks" in a number of articles definitely mean nothing in terms of notability.  A few of the sources seem to be what we usually look for (''Closing the gap between ASIC & custom'' (currently #37) and ''Understanding RISC microprocessors'' (currently #39) seem to be the best on a quick read through), but it seems to be not quite enough to establish notability.  To be honest, it would be much easier to evaluate if all of the chaff was removed, then we could see more clearly exactly how much "significant" coverage (per Wikipedia's standards) there really is.  If the article is not deleted, all of the patent links should be removed, all of the "Thanks to ..." should be removed, and all of the non-RS should be removed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The article suffers from a very high degree of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery; that's not a reason for deletion, but it does make it harder to find reasons to keep. I don't think he passes : the only possible case is for criterion C1, but he has only one paper with a significant number of citations ("Hardware/software instruction set configurability for system-on-chip processors" with 73 in GS; patents aren't papers), and he does not appear from author ordering to be its primary author, so I don't see the substantial impact that criterion C1 describes. There's a better case for notability through his inventions, patents, and corporate activity, but that would be via , and the only reliable coverage I can find of this in Google news archive is http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4037200/Update-Startup-to-bring-configurability-to-processor-cores a single story that mentions him only trivially. As for the references actually cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Killian&oldid=399611944 the current version of our article: 1,9 are fine for verifiability but not useful for showing notability, 2-8 are not secondary sources, 10 appears to be a direct copy of a source equivalent to 1,9, 11-13 are not about Kilian, 14,21 is a vanity press, 15-20,22,23,55-80 are not secondary sources, 24-35,37-54 are not about Killian and mention him only trivially. 36 is actually nontrivial, and about Kilian, but lightweight; it's the only source that actually hints at notability, and if it weren't there, my delete opinion would be stronger
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Patents are not secondary sources as required by both  and  - they are effectively self-published material regardless of the patent office's approval.  Ergo, having a lot of patents is not anything related with notability unless secondary sources have commented on that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)