Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chih-Kong Ken Yang


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Chih-Kong Ken Yang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF Derek Andrews (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep. Decent GS h-index in highly cited field and Fellow of IEEE. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC).


 * Comment 321 members were elevated to Fellow in 2011, and there are over 6000 in total . --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF explicitly states that IEEE fellowship meets criterion 3 of the guideline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to the IEEE Fellow (which should be enough by itself) Google scholar lists 6 papers with over 100 citations each and an h-index of about 22, enough for a clear pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep. Article does not assert notability or explain what he has accomplished. Reads like your average professor bio. Needs some cleanup. On the other hand, he explicitly passes WP:PROF#C3 criteria. But WP:PROF is only a guideline, not a rule. Maybe we should edit it, if IEEE starts to have too many Fellows? In my opinion, contra David Eppstein, six >100 cited papers and h-index of 22 does NOT meet the WP:PROF#C1. Most professors have that. C1 asks for significant contributions to academic field, not just designing 20 different CMOS amplifiers with slightly different characteristics and writing papers about them. Hmm, this is starting to get difficult... inclining to keep camp, but only barely. jni (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "six >100 cited papers and h-index of 22 does NOT meet the WP:PROF#C1. Most professors have that." Please provide evidence that this is the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC).
 * I can't be bothered to do a detailed statistical analysis :) Reading PROF#C1 makes it clear the guideline seems to seek some kind of inpact to the field and it explicitly says that big pile of papers does not count alone. When I nominated Vasilis Kostakos to deletion I checked the h-indexes of about a dozen of his colleagues from same institute he is working and found several junior professors with only few papers having h-index around 25. 25 > 22! I know h-index varies between academic disciplines but for EE I'd expect it to be somewhat comparable with computer science. And this guy has just a pile of papers, no other evidence for notability.
 * You will find much discussion of these matters in the archives of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2013 (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.