Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yang's Scientific Research Institute

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yang's Scientific Research Institute[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable, spam, original research, and/or vanity. This is part of a series of articles linked ultimately to Tao Yang created in an attempt to promote his "computational verb theory" and related concepts.

Regarding lack of verifiability and original research: I challenge anyone out there to find verifiable, independent, peer-reviewed sources that seriously discuss "computational verb theory". By "independent" I mean sources that are neither (a) Wikipedia mirrors; (b) web sites published by Mr. Yang; (c) books self-published by Mr. Yang; (d) journals edited by Mr. Yang; nor anything else related directly or indirectly to Mr. Yang and/or colleagues. Keep in mind that the references cited in these articles do not meet these criteria; for example, Mr. Yang is the editor (and apparently also the publisher) of the International Journal of Computational Cognition.

Regarding vanity and lack of notability: Even if the topic of "computational verb theory" is found to be verifiable, I'll also claim that it is not sufficiently notable to warrant several articles. The present state of affairs inflates the significance of Mr. Yang's theories beyond their apparent merit.

Related nominations:

This list may be incomplete. Please expand as appropriate.

Additional information: The address of this institute is "Yang's Scientific Research Institute, 1303 East University Blvd. # 20882, Tucson, Arizona 85719-0521, USA". That may give the appearance that the institute is somehow affiliated with the University of Arizona, but that appearance is misleading: in reality, the address is associated with the campus post office, and presumably resolves to a PO box.

Nominate and endorse deletion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why does CNN list a book from this organization as the top seller among books on CNN at Amazon.com? [1] It has 547 Google results. I'm not sure I understand their research and products but this looks like a legitimate technology firm whose theories have gained some attention. Keep unless the nominator makes a better case. Durova 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean by "CNN ... list[ing] a book". In the context of the book you mention, "CNN" expands to "cellular neural networks". The book "Handbook of CNN Image Processing: All You Need to Know about Cellular Neural Networks" is published by Yang's Scientific Research Institute a.k.a. YangSky and written by Tao Yang, who happens to be the founder, chief research scientist, and apparently only employee of YangSky. In other words, this is a self-published book. It's not a "top seller" at all: its Amazon sales rank is #1,423,430. There is no evidence that it has "gained some attention", other than by blatant self-promotion and piggy-backing on the "CNN" acronym. There is no evidence that Yang's Scientific Research Institute has any assets in addition to their web site and PO box, and any employees besides Mr. Yang himself. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, this is making more sense now. It looks like this is a bit more legit than what you see but not as big a deal as what the firm claims. The place has several products, mostly webcam-based applications such as optical scanners for barcodes. They conduct some basic research into other fields. I'd keep the company article and merge all related articles into it. Durova 01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~abstain~~. Delete. This all seems very fishy. I tagged all related pages as a hoax until someone can produce solid evidence that it is not. —Ruud 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Incognito 04:46, 18 January 2006 (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.