Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elad Hazan

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. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elad Hazan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable computer scientist, fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Machine learning is a high-citation subfield of a high-citation field but nevertheless his citation record [1] shows an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Speedy because the nomination is seriously faulty, not even considering the correct notability criterion (PROF not GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't need to run Scopus citation metrics on this one. AdaGrad had a legit impact on the machine learning field, and not even just in DNN optimization. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a WP:RS qualifying citation: https://www.nj.com/news/erry-2018/12/2bdd28c2e07022/selfdriving-cars-speech-recogn.html While the article is not dedicated to him, it describes the project he oversees, and mentions him as the leader of it. This is more than a trivial mention an helps establish this person as a notable expert. Based on the extensive publication record, this scientist appears to be prominent in his field and leads a high profile project with Google AI. Based on this new citation added, I believe this article should not be deleted at this time, but perhaps improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicNotes (talk • contribs)
Keep. Passes PROF-C1 based on citations.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 18:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.