Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuo-Chen Chou


 * 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. Essentially, nobody except the nominator wants to delete the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Kuo-Chen Chou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is pure advertorial and, to a high degree of certainty, it's an autobiography. Most of the content was written by two WP:SPAs, and. Both usernames suggest they are the subject. At best it needs aggressive pruning of WP:PEACOCK, but actually I think it's a WP:TNT job. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. H index of 130 and ISI Highly Cited Researcher multiple times. The way I read it, the entry describes a lot of awards and honors, but it just doesn't come across as overly promotional except maybe in a couple of spots. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not address the absence of any credible reliable independent sources. Things like H-index indicate people who are likely to be notable, which in Wikipedia parlance means that they have been written about by reliable independent secondary soruces, but it's not a magic want that confers inherent notability in the absence of such coverage. This article is drawn entirely from primary sources. ISI "highly cited researcher" status is of disputable validity, as our article points out. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF. It could use a good de-peacocking, but AfD is not cleanup. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think you're misrepresenting WP:PROF, . It's not that the high h-index confers inherent notability, it's that it implies that a very large number of scholarly papers (i.e. independent reliable sources) have covered Chou's work – in this case, according to Google, a whopping 51,849 of them. The current articles needs attention, to be sure, but with that level of coverage it's inconceivable that one couldn't write a satisfactory encyclopaedia article about Chou. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hence WP:TNT. I have no view on whether we should have an article, but this article, we should not have. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 3 December 2017 (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.