Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Bader


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

David A. Bader


Non-notable person. Associate professor and not particularly distinguished. Most likely created by the subject of the article himself (see  ). I was considering CSD:A7, but decided against it. -- mattb
 * Delete NN academic, probable COI. Sam Clark 20:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, he is regarded as a significant expert in his area by independent sources; he received the IEEE & Sigma Xi 2000 Young Outstanding Engineer Award, the National Science Foundation CAREER Award and he is an IEEE Computer Society Distinguished Speaker (see Notability (academics)). --All-Bran 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you know what those mean? The NSF CAREER award isn't exactly an exclusive club; over 400 of them were awarded last year alone .   Shall we create articles on all four hundred 2005 recipients?  Or the few thousand spanning the past couple of years?  Phrases like "regarded as a significant expert in his area by independent sources" are rather weaselly, even if they do come from some guideline page.  I have nothing against the guy, but as far as I can tell there are significant numbers of CS people as distinguished or more distinguished than him.  Practically any academic who works and teaches at a research university will garner a big list of rewards (the people I work for certainly do, but I wouldn't consider them notable enough to have pages here). -- mattb
 * Basic requirements for being an IEEE Computer Society speaker: 1. Membership (several thousand people), 2. record of public speaking at conferences and technical meetings (several hundred people), 3. Published papers and books (hundreds of people), 4. Nominated by someone... I don't see this as a great criterion for encyclopedic notability...
 * I couldn't find much information on the Sigma Xi award, but considering that society comprises a membership of about 62k persons, I suspect the aforementioned award is a research grant in the same vein as the NSF CAREER award. I have to ask again, did you do your homework on this?  Do you really think reception of research grants is valid criteria by which to gauge the notability of an academic?  Or did you just go to Dr. Bader's website, look at his research awards, and assume these constituted notability? -- mattb
 * Keep Notable academic career with impressive awards and a distinguished publication record.Sigma Xi is a scientific honorary society that is not that open to everyone (Hey, I didn't get in!). He is an Associate Prof, but his committee work and research program would be notable enough for an article if he were a full Prof. Anyway, he is tenured pretty quickly. The argument about having to create thousands of articles does not impress. We do npot have to create any of the articles if we don't want to. If someone else wants to, we can see if those individuals also have 75 pubs and the other credentials, then vote on their noms. Out of 1.5 million articles, most of them crufty stubs about bus stops, video game characters, porn actresses or garage bands, a few about academic researchers do not bother me a bit. Edison 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * strong keep An NSF career award is harder than getting tenure at a university, these are peer-reviewed grants. 75 publications, which in engineering is extremely notable indeed
 * "there are a significant number of CS people as notable..." Yes, there probably are, and they all should be in. When the discussions on notability of academics are at the level of asking whether being an asst prof. anywhere is significant, its absurd to keep him out. "Wiki is more selective that the NSF" ;) I'm with Edison. DGG 04:03, 4 December 2006 (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.