Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Goldberg


 * 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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

David E. Goldberg

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Sounds like a self-written biography of a random professor. Omsairamom (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete very much like a resume Dincher (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. His top five publications in Google scholar have over 400 citations each, and over 1000 each for the top two. That's a clear pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Top GS cites are 36503, 1304,1181,1050. How can that not pass WP:Prof #1? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Oops, I see I missed a few. The numbers are even stronger than I thought, and I already thought they were very strong. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that this AfD is the only page ever edited by the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC). A sock-search may be appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
 * keep I saw this in the Academics and Educators deletion list, and thought, "what, the David Goldberg?" Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, in case it is not yet obvious. You can also try to search for "genetic algorithms" in Google Scholar: 3 of top-5 hits are Goldberg's publications. — Miym (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Someone with 10 papers cited nearly 500 times each, and a book cited 36503(!) times, is a bit notable, I'd think. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to what others have noted above, he also holds a named chair appointment at UIUC. I have added a reference regarding this to the article. This seems to satisfy criterion 5 of WP:PROFESSOR. 98.212.63.90 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I note his book gets more cites than the greatest hits of Noam Chomsky, Charles Darwin and John Maynard Keynes - combined - so he just barely ekes out a weak keep in my view. :-) John Z (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2009 (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.