Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert K. Chin


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Albert K. Chin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot find sufficient RS for him, it seems to be a part of UPE, previously created as "Albert Chin". Meeanaya (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The previously-deleted article Albert Chin is unrelated; it was about a semiconductor engineer not a surgeon, and was deleted as a copyvio of the link I just linked. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. User:CCDLLC's first article with the same content was tagged and speedily deleted per db-g11, then re-created, then redirected by another editor (on the grounds that wikipedia doesn't use "Dr." or "Mr." or "Mrs." etc. in page names) to the page name nominated here.   identified the users of that registered account as "Dr. Chin and myself" (diff).  – Athaenara  ✉  09:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:N. Comatmebro (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The h-index is quite high (above 70, according to GoogleScholar), so arguably satisfies WP:PROF. However, almost all citations appear to be to patents, rather than to research publications, which is an unusual situation for WP:PROF. Probably should be evaluated as an inventor (that is, based on WP:BIO) rather than as an academic. The main problem is that the current text of the article is highly promotional, essentially in the G11 territory, and WP:ORish. The only references cited are to the subject's own work, and there are WP:COI/WP:AUTO issues on top of that. The current text does not appear to be salvageable. Nsk92 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.