Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Albert Kay


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

John Albert Kay

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unreferenced/unsourced article, unable to find any reliable sources for subject online. Probably does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Also a possible conflict of interest I have found: the article's creator and primary contributor "Mrmediumvoltage" appears to also be the article's subject, "John Albert Kay". A few websites with the username "Mrmediumvoltage" have the name "John Kay" (such as ) or are connected with Kitchener, Ontario (such as and  under "reviews"). RGKMA (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Would seem to be notable with the award win, although it's behind a paywall. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete unless somebody can do better. "Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" might be a valid notability claim if the article were sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but it is in no way "inherently" notable enough that just providing primary source verification in a directory entry self-published by the IEEE would be sufficient grounds for an article all by itself if the person is showing absolutely no third-party coverage in any WP:GNG-worthy media or books. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Researchers in industry as well as academics are covered by WP:NPROF, though it is much harder to source them since most of their work is published internally to their company. So we can have few articles about them. However in this case he was elected a a fellow of the IEEE, which criteria #3 mentions specifically: a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The citation to the IEEE site is fine as a source for such honors. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As StarryGrandma notes, Fellow of the IEEE is explicitly one of the examples of meeting WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as mentioned above, clear case of WP:NPROF &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Imagine my surprise at seeing yet another Topcipher/SwisterTwister sub-stub in the academic deletion listing. But regardless of how badly T/ST wrote and sourced those articles, they at least chose clearly notable subjects. Many are still badly in need of cleanup and expansion (try searching Wikipedia for the phrase "elevated fellow" and look at the shorter articles among the results) but WP:DINC. In this case, we also have a recent thwarted attempt at turning this into an unsourced autobiography but again, that is not a valid reason for deletion (it may need to be a reason for page protection if the subject cannot be persuaded to stop). A correction for the nominator: it is not true that Mrmediumvoltage is the creator or primary author of this article. The creator was a prolific stub-creator and sockpuppeteer who was blocked long ago. Mrmediumvoltage was no doubt inspired by the sorry state of the article to try to improve it, without being familiar with our guidelines for what sort of improvement is needed or not to do it if you are the subject. We should fix up more of these articles so that other subjects are not similarly tempted. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2023 (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.