Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis L. Goeckel

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 Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis L. Goeckel

Dennis L. Goeckel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Completing unfinished nom by User:Sean D Martin; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, founder of a laboratory is not a WP:PROFTEST criterion but I wonder if it should be. Also winner of an NSF CAREER award, specifically for "outstanding" promising academics (though that was 1999 and his CV shows more quotidian honors since). Dozens of papers, some with dozens of citations.[1] --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  comment it seems the lab he founded is, well, his lab... every tenure-track faculty member of a science or engineering faculty does that, that alone is far below the bar set by WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Assistant professor with PhD 1996; CV [2] lists only 25 peer-reviewed publications, though there's a lot of conference presentations in addition; no textbooks. Seems to publish under DL Goeckel, so this Google Scholar search [3] is perhaps more relevant than Dhartung's above, which shows one paper [4] with high citations (112), but only 4 others with over 20 citations. Only significant research award seems to be the National Science Foundation CAREER Award, which is for promising work early in career and so doesn't seem sufficient alone. Also on the editorial board of a couple of IEEE Transactions, currently [5], but not Editor-in-Chief in either case. Not my area, so willing to change my mind if further evidence brought, but I don't think the subject quite meets WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. That one paper found by Espresso Addict looks good but (apart from a small amount of trade press attention) I don't see anything else to match. The article as written clearly fails to assert any notability. —David Eppstein 05:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing notable. --Crusio 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete per Crusio, David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've been told that it is not right to go entirely by peer-reviewed journal articles for people in computer science, where most of the key work is likely to be in conference papers and technical reports. DGG (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Conference papers, yes; tech reports, not so much except as a preliminary announcement of something that will later be in a conference or journal. Google scholar usually picks up both of those kinds of papers and their citations, though. I would view the Google scholar citation counts as more likely to be accurate for this sort of field than for some others. As for the quality of the conference papers, you have to know something about how selective the individual conferences are, but as a first approximation the ACM and IEEE sponsored ones are good, the others less so. —David Eppstein 00:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:PROF. Eusebeus 23:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Great academic with good work but fails WP:PROF. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:14, 3 October 2007 (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.