Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell J. Nathan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mitchell J. Nathan
University of Wisconsin associate professor, already tagged for notability. No references or third party sources. Fails WP:PROF. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think he's notable. The poorly written article doesnt show it , but apparently he has writtten over 30 publications, most in good peer reviewed journals, according to Google Scholar. The one most cited [1] has been cited 95 times. That's a very considerable amount in this subject. GHe is furthermore principle investigator in a large NSF/NIH/USDE project, which also shows a considerable amount of public recognition. I think he's over the bar. DGG (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Associate professor, no major awards, Google Scholar is only finding around 20 articles that look to be in peer-reviewed journals; though the top-cited one seems fairly heavily referenced the rest not so much -- not sure he quite meets WP:PROF at this time. Prepared to change my mind if anyone unearths anything new. Espresso Addict 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Per DGG's finding that at least one of his published works is widely cited (who would have thought that math heads need reading comprehension ability to do algebra problems?) and per PI in NSF research project. Offsetting this is his own institutioin's failure to promote him, so far, to full professor. Edison 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. PI for a funded project is good but unexceptional, which I think also describes his publication record. —David Eppstein 07:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete basically per DGG, except that per his findings subject fails WP:PROF, as explicated by David above. Eusebeus 11:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral per David Eppstein. --Aarktica 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep per DGG. Kayaker 23:01, 1 August 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.
