Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepandar Kamvar

:{{la|Sepandar Kamvar}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sepandar_Kamvar Stats])

:({{Find sources|Sepandar Kamvar}})

Self Promotion, non-notable biographical entry written as advertisement, sources are self-published or non-notable. drewmunn (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 10. Snotbot  t • c »  11:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Article quality isn't great, but being a group director at MIT does seem to swing it over the bar. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Related Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog (programming language) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The individual is certainly notable as far as I can see, no problem getting past WP:GNG. Unless the nominator can provide a more thorough rationale. Not all of those sources are self-published. E.g., [http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/11/start/code-for-the-rest-of-us][http://readwrite.com/2007/08/09/interview_with_sep_kamvar_google_personalization][http://www.persianmirror.com/Article_det.cfm?id=1542&getArticleCategory=41&getArticleSubCategory=1] If anything the article has an undue number of references to self-published or irrelevant material, but that's a matter of cleanup. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It's a high-citation field, but nonetheless his citation record is strong enough to persuade me of WP:PROF#C1. On the other hand, his named chair is a junior-level one, not enough for #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (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.