Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chi-Ming 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   keep. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Chi-Ming Chow

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Oddly he is lacking Google News hits, yet he is consistently quoted in articles in all major Canadian television/news papers.
 * CBC News - Staving off flu lowers heart attack risk: study
 * CBC News - Heart risks vary by ethnicity: Ont. study
 * CBC News - Artery hardening worse among immigrants: study
 * Toronto Star - Young musician battles bad genetics
 * Globe & Mail - Immigrants more likely to suffer heart problems
 * I would add that when clicking the "Scholar" Google link you posted above, he is found as top author or contributing author on hundreds of papers.Ebrawer (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Unfortunately, none of this helps him meet the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable sources.  ttonyb  (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? CBC News and the Toronto Star are definitely reliable sources, and they're quoting Chow as an authority.  I don't understand the problem.— S Marshall  T/C 23:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Being quoted in an article about another topic is hardly secondary support for the individual.   ttonyb  (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – He is a cardiologist, and he is being quoted as an authority on cardiovascular matters. Ebrawer (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Again, being quoted in an article about another topic is not secondary support for the individual.  ttonyb  (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Heart attacks are not relevant to cardiology? I'm not sure I follow. Ebrawer (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Ebrawer. I do not even remotely understand the purported grounds for deletion and I can't seem to make any sense at all out of what Ttonyb's saying.  Those sources are impeccable.  The article's subject is a medical doctor and an assistant professor on cardiology and he's being quoted in very reputable, national news outlets as an authority on heart attacks.  Is the objection that the national news outlets haven't interviewed Chow about him personally?  I don't accept that Chow has to do a chat show style interview in order to be entitled to a Wikipedia article.  Surely his professional and academic standing should suffice.— S Marshall  T/C 12:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Very simply put, there is no secondary support for the article. If the article was about  "Staving off flu lowers heart attack risk: study" or "Immigrants more likely to suffer heart problems", the references could be used to support the article, but the article is about an individual.  Granted, the references quote the individual, but that is the extent of the support.  If one reads WP:RS, one will see it states, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  All the references do is support that the individual has been quoted in regards to the subject matter in the articles.  I'll ask the question, how does being quoted in a few articles support notability?  As far as I can tell, it does not.
 * If one looks at the criteria, it requires one of two items to be satisfied. 1)The receipt of a well-known and significant award or honor, or 2) That the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.  1)None of the awards are particularly well-known or significant awards or honors.  2) It does not appear that he has accomplished something considered to be a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - an iPhone app is not significant.
 * If one looks at WP:ACADEMIC he fails to meet that criteria as well. BTW - being interviewed on a chat show only amounts to a primary, not secondary reference source.   ttonyb  (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Well, based on your reason for deletion "Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance." I take from this that that was the criteria you had in mind to determine his notability. The lack of GNEWS hits is apparently due to Google having poorly indexed various Canadian news sites. Saying he is not notable for not being in the news and then saying that him being in the news is not notable is a contradiction. Furthermore, the (Find sources: "Chi-Ming Chow" – news · books · scholar · free images) bar includes a Google Scholar link which clearly does give significant hits. We are discussing a Canadian cardiologist, and his awards and recognition are significant in that field. Yet, what do you mean by him lacking significant honours? Well, if one verifies the rather lacking "Canadian Cardiologists" category, it contains 4 or 5 dead Canadian cardiologists, all with the... Order of Canada. This is hardly a standard by which to judge the significance of awards in the context of cardiology. I suppose they were added in an effort to write biographies on recipients of the Order of Canada. Practically speaking, it is not surprising that you do not consider prominent Canadian cardiology awards well-known. A cardiologist would not recognize most neurology awards either, let alone a lay-person. He is recognized around the world in great part due to the software he has written, and has received medical education innovation awards for it. His tools are used around the world. Again, I can understand this not being significant to you, but it is within his field.  As for the matter of secondary sources, we are attempting to establish notability. His being sought-out by the various national media as an authority on cardiology related matters is a source of verification of the claim that he is notable. These articles can serve both the purpose of establishing the individual's notability in the field of cardiology or as sources on the article's primary subject matter. You brought up lack of GNEWS hits an important factor in failing the notability requirement. This was your logic. What kind of news article would meet your standards? "Dr. Chi-Ming Chow is awarded Order of Canada by Her Majesty the Queen"? Ebrawer (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Your comment, "we are attempting to establish notability" is the most telling and is the basis for deletion. If the individual is not notable as defined by Wikipedia in WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC using secondary sources, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion.


 * There is no contradiction in my comments about news coverage. The news coverage needed to establish notability is coverage about him, not coverage not about him that quotes him.  Quotes from him do not cover him (nor is it secondary coverage about him), they cover an topic he is knowledgeable about.


 * You have made comments about his being recognized for his vast software contribution, but I see no evidence the support that statement.  ttonyb (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – You challenged the article on the basis of notability. Given they I believe him to be notable, and that he meet the requirements, I do not see how my attempting to point out why he is notable to you, which is what I mean by "establish his notability", is somehow "telling". Telling of what, that he is not notable? By this circular logic, once you have stated that he is not notable, any attempt to prove that he is constitutes... an admission of non-notability? Anyways, let's just stick to the requirements. WP:BIO: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars [...] are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.  So as an academic, he doesn't need a news story to be about him. Therefore you are plainly wrong to say the following: "The news coverage needed to establish notability is coverage about him". That said, let's move on to WP:ACADEMIC.  7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Let's see if he meets the test.  Under "notes and examples": Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.  I believe he passes this test - see MelanieN 's comment. The referenced news sources verify this claim. If you believe he fails, please explain why. Simply saying "Appears to fail WP:BIO." or "If one looks at WP:ACADEMIC he fails to meet that criteria as well." does not constitute a proof in itself, it is merely tautology. Ebrawer (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment– It is true that some Academics "...are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." However, this assistant professor is not one that falls into this category. There is no evidence he has been, "influential in the world of ideas" or proof he is an  "...academic more notable than the average college instructor/professor".  As far your assertion that he meets WP:ACADEMIC because he is a, "person [that] is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area," he is not being quoted as an "academic expert" - he is being quoted as a cardiologist and therefore this does not apply.  ttonyb  (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Please note that academics and scholars are not held to the requirements of WP:BIO because it is so rare for academics to be written ABOUT; instead they are judged by the impact they have had on their field as per WP:ACADEMIC. I believe Dr. Chow meets those requirements. He has many articles at Google Scholar and they are cited a lot; he is also frequently cited as an expert in the lay press. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Neither is this "...academic more notable than the average college instructor/professor", nor is there evidence his articles are "highly cited" as required by WP:ACADEMIC. Since this is the case, specifically which criteria in WP:ACADEMIC does this article meet?


 * Keep. He meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion 7, example 14. ("Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.")  PK  T (alk)  15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The quote does not include the individual in the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. Specifically, he is not being quoted as an "academic expert" - he is being quoted as a cardiologist.  ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Tony, I admire the tenacity with which you defend your nomination. But this time you are really stretching. Ebrawer and PKT have quoted chapter and verse showing that the subject clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria as notable, and in response you try to invent a difference between "expert" and "cardiologist". He is being quoted as an expert cardiologist, there is no difference. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – First of all, thanks; however, let's be clear. There is a difference between "academic expert" and "cardiologist".  One specifically relates to the academic environment the other specifically to the medical world.  You seem to have forgotten to include the word academic in referencing my comments.  In addition, the quote is from the definition of WP:ACADEMIC, so I can only assume it relates to defining academic notability and the quote specifically says, "academic expert".  Once more, he is not being quoted as an "academic expert" - he is being quoted as a cardiologist and therefore this does not apply. ttonyb  (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, you are sticking to your guns, and that is fine. However, decisions here are made by consensus, and I think it's clear what the consensus is at this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – If things were clear we would not be having this discussion. My best to you.  ttonyb (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per MelanieN. Heavily cited author who is frequently quoted as an expert in reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- High number of published papers and citations clearly demonstrates notability beyond that of the average professor. Frequent quotations in the national press also clearly pass the bar of notability for an academic. He is a cardiologist in an academic environment, and is quoted as such. Thus, he is being quoted as an "academic expert" cardiologist, ipso facto. If he were a political scientist being quoted about this or that election nobody would complain that he was being quoted as a political scientist rather than as an academic expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.140 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep per MelanieN. GS cites are 163, 81, 47, 41.... with h index = 13. Together with a few media hits this suffices. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Week keep. I agree with Xxanthippe, although a GS-based h-index is 24 But please clean-up the article of silly puffery. See the talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Silly puffery"? The article seemed fairly factual to me, but I deleted the repetitiousness (education, awards, etc. were all listed twice). --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2010 (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.