Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Langford (computer scientist)


 * 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. ff m  16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

John Langford (computer scientist)

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

A PhD comp sci grad, but no notability shown and missing references. Can't find any myself Iwill4q (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Simple search reveals his Yahoo Research profile, with ample evidence of citations, etc. Appears to satisfy WP:PROF. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading your link reveals that our article is a copyvio of his Yahoo Research profile. But rather than speedily deleting it per WP:CSD, I think it should be rewritten (see my keep !vote below). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyvio has since been fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If " Senior Researcher at Yahoo! Research." is anywhere near the equivalent of positions such as IBM Fellow. They are essentially the industrial equivalent of Distinguished Professor. DGG (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google scholar gives enough citations for a pass of WP:PROF #1; note that that guideline applies to "someone enaged in scholarly research", not just professors. This search finds five papers with over 100 citations each, one of them close to 2000, a very respectable record. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), as shown by David Eppstein’s search. The Science article alone, with its 2037 Google Scholar citations, makes it very difficult to argue for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:42, 11 February 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.