Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew C. Whitaker
As I discussed in the talk page already, I think the standard here should be  rather than : this may not be about an actual crime, but it is misconduct, and the same principles should apply. He's documented as a plagiarist, but is he notable as a plagiarist? Specifically we should ask whether there is "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role", as  requests. When I said this in talk, I didn't think this standard was met, but I've since changed my mind. We have coverage in both a major state-wide newspaper (the ''Arizona Republic'') and a major newsmagazine of academia (''Inside Higher Ed'') among other sources, for multiple separate incidents published from 2012 to 2015. Additionally, the newer articles rehash the earlier incidents, providing coverage of those incidents from a longer-term perspective that is not merely reporting of recent news. Given all this, I don't think we need to determine whether his books or the title he was demoted from are enough to give him academic notability
— User:David, 21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PERP||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)