Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald C Chow

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald C Chow[edit]

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

This is an article about a student. While he has done some feats. It's not enough to meet notability. There is not enough independent sources to show it as well. While I am sure he will make a real name for himself one day. Reb1981 (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. @Reb1981: Actually, if google scholar pans out, he is probably notable. My concern is the google scholar hits look too good to be true.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:I am having trouble finding more sources on him. It's not for my like of trying. That google scholar is about the only thing I can find. Maybe when more get on here we can figure it out. Reb1981 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Many hands make light work.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I see no way to distinguish this Ronald Chow from any others, and the article is egregiously promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About the only strong evidence of notability here is the Google Scholar hits — and as written, this article doesn't actually make any claim about him that would enable us to properly verify that the Google Scholar hits are correctly for him, rather than an accidental conflation of two or more different people with similar names. (For example, the Google Scholar results seem to wobble all over the place from cancer research to dementia research to studies of helmet use among cyclists — what could Chow possibly be studying at Western that crosses over all three of those distinctly unrelated topics? Neither this biography nor even the Google Scholar page tells us what his major is, for starters, and even the LinkedIn page linked from Google Scholar just says the generic "medical science" rather than being sufficiently specific either — just like this article, it also places much stronger emphasis on his community involvement résumé than it does on anything that might make him notable as a medical researcher.) So, long story short, we need much stronger verification than this before we can consider him notable for any of it. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Such is what my disquietude is made from.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims in article not established. Possible hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I have no reason to doubt the citation record, but so far it looks prolific but not especially impactful (many papers, low citation numbers) and therefore not passing WP:PROF#C1. It is perhaps interesting that an undergraduate medical intern has been so prolific, but if it were notable it would only be through WP:GNG, and we don't have the sources for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick spot check suggests that another person named Edward Chow, who is a professor at the same institution (Sunnybrook, Toronto), also appears on most of these papers...or it's probably more accurate to say that Ronald Chow appears on all of Edward Chow's papers, the latter probably being the father of the former, although I could not conclusively demonstrate this hypothesis. If there is such a relationship, it would basically invalidate any claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I though it imaginable that Edward has added his name to Ronald's papers to give them a chance of being published, but almost all are work with multiple other authors. There's a few single-author papers like "A pilot project of an online cross-age tutoring program – Crescent school virtual learning (vLearning)" -- this could indeed be something a student might do, and there are a few related studies of young adults in various towns in Ontario--see the link to the book, and note the publisher. See also the other people in the "meet our team link". DGG ( talk ) 12:43, 16 May 2017 (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.