Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hang Yin

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. I think the subject of this biography lies along the boundary of our notability guidelines and there is no clear consensus whether to keep or not among established users and policy-based argument. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang Yin[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Page previously deleted via PROD... I would prefer this went through AFD to gain consensus. Original reason given was: This article does not verifiably establish WP:PROF Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note PROD nominator has made no contributions to Wikipedia other than to propose this article for deletion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an associate professor, not yet at the level where notability is typical, and none of the junior-researcher awards listed contributes much for notability. But I think his citation record [1] is good enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Positive social impact has been made through investigational drugs ^[1] Improvement and updates have been implemented to the page, which should have established WP:PROF. — comment added by Qr972500 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Qr972500 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

References

^ "Market Watch".

Keep. I think that this meets WP:GNG. See""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". For significant coverage, see [2], [3], [4] etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.82 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.138.65.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF. Mmsumoer (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Mmsumoer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak Delete I restored this article as it had been PRODed without discussion. While I agree that the article subject's citation record is impressive, this does not establish notability. Criterion 1 of WP:PROF, I would argue, requires more than a list. Of the sources referenced in the article, the majority are not independent of the subject. Those that are independent are little more than trivial coverage. Of course, being named in a Nature news piece is impressive, but it does not establish notability. My main concern with this article is one of WP:SPIP. The article has clearly been placed on Wikipedia as a promotional piece by either the subject or people close to him. These people are the same WP:SPAs that are arguing to keep above. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein's arguments.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If kept, it would be primarily because of the awards. However, I looked at some of the award sites and many of these are grants that are given to a large number of researchers -- eg the NSF career grant is given to 100-150 researchers per year. What bothers me, though, is that this appears to be primarily a self-promotion, and it has carried through to this AfD. The author of the article has added and deleted !votes here a number of times, which is contrary to the culture of transparency that should govern this area, IMO. With such an undisclosed WP:COI it would be necessary to keep a close eye on this article to avoid wp:promo. However, I don't think that the article is worth that effort. LaMona (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2015 (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.

[1] "Market Watch".

[1]