Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragomir R. Radev


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dragomir R. Radev

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet criteria for WP:BLP. avs5221(talk&#124;contrib) 10:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - What sort of deletion rationale is WP:BLP? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A quick search of his name turns up papers by him that have been cited by 547 others, in addition to various other papers that have been cited multi-hundreds of times. While I'm no expert on professors and their notability, the amount of impact he appears to have had on his field makes it appear that he passes WP:PROF #1. Being a recipient of the ACM "Distinguished Scientist" award seems to pass WP:PROF #2. Additionally, judging by all the entries on him in various universities, he may also meet WP:PROF #4. Thus I believe that this article should be kept. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Radev has been twice elected as the ACL secretary, which matches for WP:PROF #6. He is also the founder of North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad (NACLO) and the coach of US team in the international linguistics Olympiad (ILO). I believe this matches the criterion in WP:PROF #7 (he person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.)  Finally, according to Google Scholar his h-index is 33 from 3079 citations, which is ranked as the top 1/3 of one percent of all computers scientists  in http://arnetminer.org/.  Therefore, I also strongly believe that this article should be kept. Vqazvinian (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2011 (PDT)
 * Clear keep as exhaustively explained above. Nominator is advised to read WP:Prof and carry out WP:Before before making any more time-wasting nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Senseless nomination.DrPhosphorus (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Six papers with over 100 cites each in Google scholar is enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. I'm not convinced the ACM Distinguished Scientist is enough for #C2 — it's a grade of membership more than an award, a step below fellow which would be enough for #C3 — but there's enough other reasons to keep this that it doesn't matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2011 (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.