Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Zhang (Operations Research Professor)

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. There is consensus that the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines for academics. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Zhang (Operations Research Professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic, fails WP:NACADEMIC Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the article is currently written, this subject does not appear to be notable. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've trimmed the poorly-sourced material and added sourcing from his cv and an academic society. I think his citation record [1] is strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and as head of two major sections within INFORMS he has a plausible case for #C6. He is not currently a Fellow of INFORMS (if he were, we would also have #C3) but that seems a likely eventuality. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's clear none of the deletion advocates bothered to check this academic's extensive publication record, which includes several highly cited papers and appears to included several favorably reviewed technical books. This is exactly the type of subject that Wikipedia ought to cover. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, until I located his Google Scholar page, the citation record was hard to find among all the other publications by other people named Dan Zhang. His cv and home page do not list any books, and I don't see any on the GS page; which ones do you have in mind? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the article to add this information and I'm happy to reevaluate my position. ElKevbo (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, you reject our notability policy, which makes clear that notability is established by available sources, not those in the article at any particular moment. See also WP:RUSHDELETE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, before ElKevbo wrote that, I did trim the self-sourced cruft from the article and then re-expand it to include the information I included in my keep comment. (That is, the links to Google Scholar and his stints as head of two sections of INFORMS.) So, ElKevbo, did you re-evaluate? Or pre-re-evaluate? Or whatever it is one does when one responds to something that happened before you even left your response? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Thanks for pinging me. The article is improved but I'm afraid that my opinion is unchanged. I encourage those who judge this subject notable to please add that information to the article (or don't as it looks like there will be enough "keep" !votes to overrule my "delete"). ElKevbo (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein & citations. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe the C1 case for this academic in a medium citation field. I'm not sure C6 is quite met, but the progress towards it help support. David Eppstein has greatly improved the rough state of the article – nice work finding the GS profile. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My keep here is without reservation, but I do want to comment that users JglynchatCU and Kyda6468 have been creating a large number of articles of uneven quality about CU Leeds faculty; Kyda6468 shows signs of WP:UPE, and I'm not sure about JglynchatCU. The topics mostly look notable, but WP:BOGOF may apply. Volunteers may want to keep this in mind for the next 5 articles about Leeds faculty. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.