Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana S. Nau

: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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Dana S. Nau]]=

:{{la|Dana S. Nau}} ([{{fullurl:Dana S. Nau|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana S. Nau}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Is this professor particularly notable? And the fact that the article was created by an user named {{user|Dsnpost}} suggests some interesting conflict of interest issues. Unless notability shown, delete. Nlu (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. Accusations of vanity are against multiple policies on civility, assumption of good faith and biographies of living persons. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Full disclosure: I am not Dana Nau, but I am one of his many former research students; it should be obvious from my edit history that I have only a passing familiarity with Wikipedia. I assume (though I don't know) that Dsnpost was Dana Nau, and clearly any self-promotion in Wikipedia is fraught with peril. That said, I read WP:ACADEMIC, and Dana Nau seems to qualify for notability rather easily, both by criterion 1 (see his [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3Anau+author%3Adana citation statistics], as well as the references to SHOP2 and some of his other work at Hierarchical task network) and, as a AAAI fellow, for criterion 3. Philosophically, though, I don't know where Wikipedia stands on articles that should have been created, but probably not by the editor who created them. Incremental Improvements (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. According to GScholar [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dana+S.+Nau+&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search], this guy is cited like there's no tomorrow. It may be self-promotional, and tacky, but passes WP:ACADEMIC nonetheless - Vartanza (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well. Citation impact [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sauthors=%22Dana+S.+Nau%22 clearly indicates notability].--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:09, 30 May 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.