Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hanson (computer scientist)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP: 8k, 3d, 1m. Anon discounted, nom included. -Splash 02:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

David Hanson (computer scientist)
Vanity Page Barkeep49 23:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article establishes notability. ElBenevolente 02:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Self-promotion. --Edcolins 09:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Although the article smells like vanity and self-promotion to me, my personal criterion for an published author being notable is that he or she have a book with an Amazon sales rank number of less than 200,000. The two books mentioned rank at #82,228 and #103,921 respectively, so they pass my test. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Google since he works there and there's little else to say about him. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Notable research in compiler construction and optimization.  Much more notable than the average professor, he's been at this for about 20 years and in addition to two books he has 32 papers listed on ACM Portal. Quale 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The only reason I could even consider this a keep is for his books, but I am not of the opinion that all types of books are equal. Some books are author driven, some are subject driven. People who buy novels certainly pay attention to the author. People who buy textbooks and techincal manuals generally do not. His books seem to be the latter sort. While people often have the mindset "I'm going to buy a book by Heinlein or Ambose" (or whoever), I think people who buy this guy's book are thinking "I'm going to buy a book on programming in C". The fact that this article also seems like vanity doesn't encourage me either. -R. fiend 15:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Seems factual rather than promotional. (As long as it doesn't turn into something promotional.) Peter Grey 15:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Quale. Pavel Vozenilek 23:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable programmer. JamesBurns 03:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep since I think he meets the criteria that we would use for an author. The article could use a good cleanup so it does not read like a resume at the start. Vegaswikian 00:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bar of "notability" is being set way too high if this guy is excluded. Grace Note 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --67.171.147.236 13:37, 25 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.