Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fei-Yue Wang

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. The only delete !vote after David Eppstein's rewrite clearly didn't read the article as it currently stands and the previous delete !votes no longer apply to the current article. So Why 20:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fei-Yue Wang[edit]

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

This article has been something of a problem: It is created and maintained by a SPA, and has been twice deleted (once for copyright violation) before being recreated. Sourcing is a major problem, and the subject falls very short of WP:GNG requirements. Perhaps it is time for this to be deleted and salted. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a fellow of IEEE and AAAS (WP:PROF#C3). But the two previous deletions were because it was copied and pasted from his CV (WP:CSD#G12) and this may need permanent protection to keep the SPA from turning it back into a CV again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IEEE has more than 400,000 members, so being one of that very large crowd does not warrant standalone Wikipedia biographical coverage. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the difference between a fellow and a member, you shouldn't be involved in deletion discussions of academics. The number of new IEEE fellows in any year is limited to 0.1% of the total membership, and the level of accomplishment needed to attain this distinction is generally well above that needed for a full professorship at a good research university. That's why WP:PROF specifically calls this out as one of its criteria for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is a guideline, not an editorial rule, and the page itself says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The argument you are making is that every IEEE fellow deserves a Wikipedia article, even if there is no sourcing whatsoever to back up any other evidence of notability. This article appears to be either self-promotion by the professor or an overactive display of promotion by one of his students or peers. In none of its multiple forms has it ever come close to standard WP:GNG or WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the content in an article fails to establish notability of the subject. That is simply a matter of improving the article if the subject is notable. What we are concerned with in a notability AFD is whether or not the subject is notable, regardless of what is in the article. See WP:ARTN Meters (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:GNG and WP:BIO are guidelines, so your "WP:PROF is a guideline" appears to be content-free. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:VERIFY is policy and there is no verification that this guy has accomplished anything that is notable. Wefihe (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IEEE and AAAS fellowships are very easily verifiable, if you would only take the effort to look for sources yourself as WP:BEFORE requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terrible article as it stands and initially I thought he failed WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC, but he was a keynote speaker at this year's IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium http://iv2017.org/keynote-speakers/ His bio there says "He was the Founding Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems from 1995 to 2000, the Series on Intelligent Control and Intelligent Automation from 1996 to 2004, and IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems from 2006 to 2008, and the EiC of IEEE Intelligent Systems from 2009 to 2012. Currently, he is the EiC of IEEE Transactions on ITS. " With verification this would be sufficient to pass point 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Meters (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quoting from a convention schedule is not the way to source an encyclopedia article. There are no independent sources to verify who this guy is or what he has done that is so special. A total failure of the WP:VERIFY policy. Wefihe (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't propose using the convention bio as a source. I said "with verification" Meters (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, where's the verification? Guess what? There is none. And you don't need to be an IEEE member or fellow to figure that out. Wefihe (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ a BLP with no reliable references (the only reference is a link to a Google Scholar search). The subject may be notable if the article is improved, but as-is the article should be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see see WP:ARTN. It's not whether the article currently demonstrates his notability, it's whether the subject is notable. He appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Meters (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! WP:NACADEMIC clearly states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Where are the reliable sources to verify this guy makes the cut? Wefihe (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out there on the net, if you would only take the effort to look for them. They are in no way required to already be in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better idea: you look for them. After all, you are claiming that these sources exist, so get off your rump and find them. Without verified reliable sources, this article has no value here. Wefihe (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as a post-script - UA News from the University of Arizona is not a verifiable source. That's marketing material from the school's public relations office; Wang worked at the school, so there is a huge conflict of interest. That should not be allowed in the article - and, for that matter, all editors should be allowed to edit the article, not just the ones that are trying to keep it. Wefihe (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I rewrote the article. It now indicates a eight-fold pass of WP:PROF: (1-3) fellow of three major learned societies, (4-6) editor-in-chief of three journals (there was a fourth journal that I didn't mention because I'm not convinced it's significant), (7) president of IEEE ITSS, (8) heavily-cited publications in his Google Scholar profile. But since four of the eight were already in the article before I rewrote it, and the rewrite did nothing to change the existence of sources for this material (only their accessibility to lazy readers), I don't expect this to change the minds of the editors above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check All of the sources cited in the article are either from Wang's employers or the trade groups where he holds positions. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. A total failure of WP:VERIFY. Wefihe (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely normal for biographies of academics (who else would you expect to publish this sort of material?), and calling these learned societies "trade groups" indicates a big failure of understanding. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal for biographies that don't belong on Wikipedia. As for IEEE, I worked for them at one time and I can attest it is anything but a "learned society." As they used to say in the office, "Just make sure the checks don't bounce." Wefihe (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the rewrite adequately establishes notability. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Wefihe. This is a LinkedIn page, not an encyclopedia article. All of the sources come from the professor's employers. He hasn't accomplished anything that the outside world has acknowledged. 75.99.209.98 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC) — 75.99.209.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The last I looked the IEEE, ASME, and AAAS which have all honored him are firmly in the outside world. Notability is due to having been noticed within your field of expertise. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would echo the warnings of other editors about IEEE. I think the technical standards and Computer Science sides are respectable, but it's a federal organization and the quality varies widely. Some of their online journals and proceedings publish articles that would struggle to get through AfD and certainly should not count as RSs. Both the AAAS and the IEEE have thousands of fellows; it is an honour, but it's not sufficient for notability. I am surprised it's present in WP:PROF as we recently had a consensus to remove it. Matt's talk 21:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean to post a different link? I see nothing resembling a consensus for removal at the link you posted, and five years ago is not "recently". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE is not a "federal organization." It clearly identifies itself [1] as a "professional organization" - or, as another editor stated, a trade group. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Matt meant "federated", as in decentralized, rather than "federal", under the control of the federal government. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC which is just as legitimate a guideline as WP:GNG. All claims in the article are verifiable. Those making snarky remarks about that guideline and the academic societies should lobby for change elsewhere, since their comments are not valid here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes Notablity. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:34, 10 August 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.