Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Goldman


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dana Goldman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable economist/professor. Fails all criteria of WP:BIO. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article does nothing but quote his profile posted on his employer's website. -Steve Dufour (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. See this Google News archive search and this Google Scholar search and these USA Today headlines. --Eastmain (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A radiologist, professor of both Health economics and of Radiology at UCLA, there will surely be quite a bit to find. And given what Eastmain found, it raises the question of whether people should be nominating for deletion without having searched at least Google and GN & if relevant GS and GB. Not that these are sufficient to find al l references on many subjects, but even just they are often  enough to show notability.  And if the the nom fails to do so,should someone !vote without looking for themselves? DGG (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to DGG's comments, GoogleScholar results are impressive with top citation hits of 460, 357, 192, 172, 156, 129. A GoogleNews search for "Dana Goldman" RAND gives 88 hits. Passes several criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per new sources added. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Reminder that hits on search engine are not a criteria for notability. None of the search results appear to provide anything beyond trivial mentions that cannot be used to establish notability. Remember articles are required to 'address the subject directly in detail', not just mention a name. On this basis the 'keep' votes would best be reconsidered -- neon white talk 03:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but see WP:GOOGLE for all the things they ARE good for. Please WP:AGF that those of us who look at and post search engine results are aware of the limitations that they have within WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I made no claims that anyone was acting in bad faith. The fact remains that hits on a search engine cannot be used to establish notability, it simple is not a criteria for obvious reasons. The sources found by a search must be significant and in this case i cannot find any that are. -- neon white talk 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources found appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. He is an authority in his field quoted by the media as such. (Example 2 of that guideline, to be precise). RayAYang (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please clarify, i cannot find a source that cites that fact. -- neon white talk 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Forbes, USA Today, etc. These are just a few that popped up from one of the Google news links above. RayAYang (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing in those two is significant or has any detail. According to policy it must "address the subject in detail". Both articles contain no more than a brief quote attributed to him and cannot be used to establish notability and cannot add any substance to the wikipedia article. -- neon white talk 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neon, WP:ACADEMIC is distinct from standard notability criteria in this regard. Indeed, the first possible criterion for notability is "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." Dana Goldman meets that criterion by a mile. I suspect academic notability criteria are different from standard ones because academics, even really great ones, tend to get full-length biographies only in the obituary, so the usual press-coverage type sources are often missing while alive. RayAYang (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We really don't have any sources that back up the view that he is a significant expert. Both USA today and Forbes simply describe him as a director at RAND and make no claims of him being an expert in the field, significant or otherwise. Criteria 2 or 3 would be the most likely but there would still have to be evidence of that. -- neon white talk 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being director for a major policy field at RAND is to public policy circles what holding a chair is to university circles. It definitely says that the holder of the position is an expert. Media sources have cited him as such. RayAYang (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GS citations to an article are when properly used are a reasonable approximate minimum indication of exactly what is meant, by being used by scholars in the field as an authority. They are not search results in the Google sense, but instances where other scholars have referred to the work. We cannot use it to rule out in an automatic way, for most pre 1990 work is not in GS, and items from quite a number of major publishers are omitted also. And we do be watchful, for typically around 1/3 of the items are citations from other than real academic sources. But that a work has been referred to over 400 times by sources listed there is a sound criterion of notability. Web of science or scopus are screened better, but they do not apply to all subjects, and cover only journal articles. DGG (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per DGG, Eastmain, and Nsk92. Could someone please correct the following phrase in the article: "Presently, he holds the RAND Chair in Health Economics here he is is Director of Health Economics"? I couldn't figure out what exactly was meant there. --Crusio (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.