Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wong (Professor)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Wong (Professor)

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

WP:BLP of an academic, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for academics. As always, simply holding an administrative role with a university is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but seven of the nine footnotes here come from primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his faculty profiles on the self-published websites of the university departments that employ him, press releases from the university and an article in the student newspaper of the same university, and the only two independent footnotes in real media fully independent of his own employer are both glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial way. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get an academic into Wikipedia, vice-president of a university division or not — he needs much, much better sourcing than anything that's been offered here. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep (I am the author/creator of this article) He meets WP:ACADEMIC criteria 5 "The person has held a named chair appointment...." as he was the Canada Research Chair in health, democracy and development (see https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/profile/wong-joseph/ - note also acceptability of academic primary sources for things like this) I could expand upon all the other notable aspects, but this meets the criteria alone, so I don't think that's necessary CT55555 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Post-script: I'm just re-reading the comments in WP:ACADEMIC about acceptability of primary sources and realizing that first we need to establish notability through secondary sources, sorry, I thought there was a bit of a lower bar for academics, I have have over stated it above. I'm now a bit less sure of myself, I guess it hinges on the criteria 5. I'll look for stuff that backs that up more independently in the short term. CT55555 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PPS There is actually an overwhelming volume of content about his work as the Canada Research Chair, but it's overwhelmingly him being interviewed and therefore primary sources. I might not have time/energy/motivation to put that much effort into this one, I started it because I thought it was easy article but that seems to be an error. I'll see what others think here before putting tons of work into this article. CT55555 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ACADEMIC includes the statement that for criteria 5: "For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source." So his faculty bio at the University of Toronto may suffice to establish that the subject has held a CR Chair. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Others have pointed out that the chair alone satisfies the academic notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. As both a CRC holder and "Roz and Ralph Halbert Professor of Innovation" he appears to have a double pass of WP:PROF. Citation counts are hard to obtain because of the common name. But the article is in bad-enough shape to make WP:TNT come into play. Hint: this is an article, not a curriculum vitae. It should consist of text, telling the important points in the story of his life, with all claims fully backed by published reliable sources, as our policy on biographies of living people requires. In its current state it looks like an indiscriminate listing of minor accomplishments, randomly ordered, making it not useful as a biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @David Eppstein I take your point about how it's written. I was keen to avoid anything seeming promotional, so aimed for a very simple narration of facts, but since your comments, I've made it a bit more narrative. I'll keep thinking about this and maybe try to make more improvements in coming days. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The initial concerns about how this is cited are valid and I apologize for them, I misread WP:ACADEMIC. Specifically I erred in thinking that primary sources were good for academics. But WP:ACADEMIC says they are only good once notability is shown through secondary sources. It has not been easy as he has a very common name, but I have now added in secondary sources, the AfD process has a time limit on it, so this has put me under time pressure, but I'm optimistic that the re-write to address style comments made above and citation concerns by Bearcat are addressed CT55555 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Profs tend to pass WP:AUTHOR with two books that have reviews from reliable sources, as this one surely does. But you have only one review cited for each right now. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a very helpful tip, thanks. I've added a couple of reviews to each. CT55555 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: looks like this has WP:NAUTHOR now too. I checked on the cites and they look fine, but this isn't my field so I'm not familiar with all of these journals. I know do know JEAS is solid though. -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very clearly passes WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2022 (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.