Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Killian
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
— User:David, 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)