Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiyang Luo


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jiyang Luo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability per WP:BIO. It's a good try but the cited sources do not meet WP:RS. Two of them are papers written by Jiyang Luo; one is a search engine query and the history of the punch card link does not verify that Luo was involved. We do not have non-trivial coverage by third-party sources. There are also a WP:NPOV issue but that can be cleaned up if it's kept. Enviroboy TalkCs 04:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. One paper with no Google scholar citations is very far from passing WP:PROF, the usual standard when someone is claimed as here to be notable for their academic achievements. And I see nothing else resembling a claim of notability in the article. The only thing saving it from an A7 speedy is all the peacock language. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with the lack Notability to support article. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge - It's hard to say. There are few online resources that give a more comprehensive understanding of history of the study of artificial neural networks.  In admission to any perceived non-objectivity, I know the student who wrote this article.  The peacock language should probably be edited out.  There don't seem to be any sources available to verify his breadboard patent, and personally, I have no idea either, so I won't bother wasting my time trying to research it.  However, I am aware of his hypothesis.  I'm a subscriber to the IEEE, and upon reading his article, one can infer its significance, in fact, based on today's direction in artificial neural networks.  Give it more time? tatepotato (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (PST)
 * In response to David Eppstein, I often cite papers on IEEE, a very reliable resource for academics studying artificial neural networks. If it's good enough for research papers, it should be good enough for Wikipedia.  In addition, references cannot be viewed by non-subscribers.  As far as papers are concerned, there are more available on IEEE.  The author clearly was too lazy to go beyond googling his work, but a query on IEEE would be more enlightening. Tatepotato (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Google scholar shows zero papers citing Luo's "Instant learning for supervised learning neural networks: arank-expansion algorithm". The page for the paper in IEEE Xplore (10.1109/ICNN.1994.374277) shows zero citing documents. It's not even listed in ISI Web of Knowledge because it's not a journal paper. Did you have any other databases you think might do a better job of showing some significance for this work? And "Give it more time?" is not a good argument for keeping, per WP:CRYSTAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * David, although I know the creator of this article, I have no personal stake. I am not much of a "Wikipedian", but to be fair, I do know that: 1) The paper you mentioned has two iterations, one of which is indeed a journal paper.  2) There are plenty of papers by Jiyang Luo out there, and I read at least a few of them in my student years (just a few years back).  3) His first journal paper is one of the first in a major change in trend of research direction.  Even before I got an account, I helped salvage many articles that were stubs and/or insignificant blurbs, so when I suggested "give it more time", I first asked myself: Is the subject notable?  In my humble opinion, yes.  Anyone willing to do digging could put together a significant list of the subject's publications, a number of which are frequently cited.  (i.e. Articles should not be so easily dismissed because of clean-cut "WP" protocol).  I hope you'll understand that I say so out of a cooperative spirit, not an argumentative one.  Back then, articles could sit around for months as mere stubs until someone came around and made a substantial contribution.  Especially because artificial neural networks is a field relevant to my work, I would be saddened to see an attempt go to waste.  If I want to make it in WP someday, I'd better be getting back to my own research ;), so I'll exit the discussion with that. Tatepotato (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (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.