Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kleinberg


 * 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The result was nom withdrawn. Thanks for the feedback. I'll be more careful to examine WP:NACADEMIC in future, (non-admin closure) Triptothecottage (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert Kleinberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources except a single primary in two years. No indication of passing WP:NACADEMIC. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Question for nominator Google Scholar shows over 8000 citations to his work . In your opinion, is that insufficient to pass WP:NACADEMIC? Bakazaka (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm surprised he's still associate, but with two JACM papers in the last year alone it's certainly not because of inactivity. Maybe he's just overshadowed by having a more-celebrated brother in the same department? Anyway, with 29 papers with over 100 citations each and a Google Scholar h-index of 52 he very easily passes WP:PROF. And if you want more in-depth sources about his life and work (although we don't use those sorts of things as measures for notability of academics) there's always  and . —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as an H-index of 52 (from Google Scholar) is pretty good for theoretical computer science (even if I take into account the inflation due to Google scholar). Add to that three first 3 papers with the highest citations are in ICML, INFOCOMM, STOC all tier 1 conferences. There are other papers in SOCA and FOCS as well (also tier 1). Undoubtedly notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep notability does not require that secondary sources that establish notability be used in the page, it only requires that they exist per WP:NEXIST. Looking at the above it looks like enough sources to establish notability do exist. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but Draftify . Subject is notable but the article is almost unreferenced which is not suitable for a BLP; draftify. Britishfinance (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now that it is referenced, it is a keep. Britishfinance (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks to and, the referencing has been significantly improved. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There's not a lot of significant independent references, but the number of citations in Google Scholar is huge. Qualifies as a notable academic.Sandals1 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Suggest this nomination is withdrawn. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2019 (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.