Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Astrachan


 * 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 Kept pursuant to improvements establishing notability through influence in the the field. bd2412 T 02:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Owen Astrachan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article qualifies for deletion because:


 * 1) . The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:NOTABILITY)
 * 2) . It is self-promotional (WP:PROMOTION)

Notability

None of the following things qualify the subject as notable:


 * His role as a professor; that is his profession, and Wikipedia is not a directory
 * His professional awards; We don't list everybody who has ever won a professional award
 * His NSF grants; those belong on his faculty page, if he has one
 * His role as an expert witness in a software patents case
 * Being a published author

Self-promotion


 * The tone is self-promotional.
 * The article contains irrelevant details about the subject's hobbies.
 * The article was created and most of the edits to it have been made by the user Bubble snipe. This user's only contributions to Wikipedia have been either to this article or to other articles to insert links to this one.
 * The secondary sources cited in the article are merely news stories in which the subject is quoted, not news stories about the subject.
 * None of the references have anything to do with the subject himself. He is quoted as an expert witness in software patents case in one. The rest is name-dropping.

With respect to the subject, there's nothing to salvage here. Many award-winning professors don't merit their own Wikipedia articles. The article should be deleted. Rhombus (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure. GS h-index of 20 seems rather low for a high-cited field. Nomination seems to overly hostile and, despite its length, short on detail. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. It is hard to find the usual publication support for academics whose impact has been on improving high school and undergraduate education in their field rather than research in the field. But he is a full professor at a major research university and an NSF Computer and Information Science and Engineering Distinguished Education Fellow. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He is also the principle investigator on the NSF grant for the joint NSF/College Board project that has just produced the new AP Computer Science Principles course and exam. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 00:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, reluctantly. He does seem to be a prominent CS educator rather than scholar, so we should look for evidence via WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. But the article provides none of the in-depth reliable independent sources needed to pass GNG among all of the anecdotal cruft that it lists, and I didn't find anything suitable elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been slowly rewriting the article. If this educator's impact on his field as shown by awards isn't enough to warrant an article I despair of getting any academic who is primarily an educator in., will these sources and do?
 * - his role in the development of the various AP computer science courses and exams from 1984 to the present
 * - citation and introduction for the 2016 ACM Karl V. Karlstrom Outstanding Educator Award (primary source for the award, secondary source for the in-depth analysis of his impact on computer science education)
 * - with Peter Denning the only two CISE Distinguished Education Fellows awarded by the NSF
 * StarryGrandma (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be clearer if the non-notable stuff (he got this NSF grant and this other NSF grant...he wrote this programming assignment and this other programming assignment) were removed so that the article could more clearly focus on things that make him notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I cut a sizable amount of stuff, so the article might be better focused now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've finished revising. I don't know why it took me so long to find his ACM awards page. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Change to keep. The external recognition as a CS educator now more visible in the article (NSF/CISE Distinguished Educator, ACM Distinguished Member, and Karlstrom Award) should be enough. I think the criterion that best fits is WP:PROF: "significant impact in the area of higher education". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep on the grounds of adequately satisfying (flips through The Wikipedian's Complete Almanac of Acronyms) WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate]]. talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.