Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy M. Chan


 * 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.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Timothy M. Chan

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

Non-notable, appears to just be another professor with nothing notable for inclusion. Possibly also a conflict of interest, heavily edited by unregistered IPs who only edit this article. The359 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep prizes, editorships, full prof./research chair. JJL (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think the University Research Chair at Waterloo may be enough for WP:PROF #5. Google scholar lists quite a few good publications although none obviously stand out by their citation record as great yet (the one with the most citations is the output-sensitive convex hull algorithm mentioned in the article but I like the dynamic convex hull and randomized optimization technique ones, halfway down the results page, even better). For those who complain that algorithm research is just shaving logarithmic factors off of time bounds, that's a pretty accurate description of much of his research, and that sort of incremental work doesn't always lead to high citation counts, but he does it very well. I work in the same area as him and think he fully deserves his place in Category:Researchers in geometric algorithms but it's hard to point to anything specific (beyond the research chair, or perhaps his very young age at Ph.D.) that we can use here to justify notability; nevertheless I'm certain he's someone for whom it will eventually be obvious that he should have an article here and I don't see the harm in keeping it until that time. (Yes, WP:CRYSTAL — but the article, and the bulk of my keep argument, is based on his present accomplishments.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep At least there is something worth mentioning about him, in contrast to some other academics who also have articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant prizes beyond the university, and a major chair within it. Waterloo is a major research university. It would be helpful to add references to some of his best papers. DGG (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per David Eppstein. Also think that the Chair probably satisfies WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:10, 17 January 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.