Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orr Dunkelman

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 Delete per consensus that notability is not (yet) established. No prejudice against recreaton if/when reliable sources are found/cited to establish notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orr Dunkelman

Orr Dunkelman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Insufficient Notability Herrmunchausen (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Most academics at this stage in their career are non-notable and I'm not convinced that he should be an exception. He has several pretty well cited papers in Google scholar already [1], and a little media attention for discovering some vulnerabilities in digital car keys [2], but it's hard to tell at this point how much is due to him and how much to his much more famous coauthor Eli Biham. Could well be notable some day but better to wait a while I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable academic and open source activist. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per David Eppstein's comments. The subject's academic contributions are not yet sufficiently significant at this stage (not surprisingly since he is currently a postdoc). Open source activism by itself does not seem to be sufficiently notable at this stage. GoogleNews only gives 3 hits for his name[3], one of them is the Inquirer article that David Eppstein mentioned. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlFrei (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please assume good faith. We are not here to evaluate contributors' reasons for creating articles, but rather to evaluate the articles themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • weak keep A paper with a citation count of 48 in a peer-reviewed conference is enough to show some degree of notability. And notice by the public press is enough to demonstrate it.DGG (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per David Eppstein's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (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.