Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lin Chen


 * 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. Tagging for cleanup. Shimeru 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lin Chen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reads like self-promotion without sufficient indicia of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC) should know Dr Lin Chen's model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.82.3 (talk • contribs)
 * KeepIf you are in the finance industry doing cutting edge stuffs or you are in academia, you
 * I'm no good with professors, but Dr. Chen does look to have a pretty good publication record in academic journals and such. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

I am afraid you don’t what you are talking about and whom you are talking about. Prof Chen finished physics PhD courses in the sophomore year. This is a fact documented in Chinese news. He is a genius of China. If he were born in the states he may have won a Nobel Prize by now. Your are right that all professors are writing teaching and speaking, but can you tell the difference? Do you know anything about his areas of research, term structure modeling. Term structure model is the cornerstone of modern finance. Many people work on it but few succeed. Are you familiar with other big names mentioned in that bio, Cox-Ingersoll-Ross, Duffie, Hull&White, Heath-Jarrow-Moton, Longtaff-Scwartz? Tell you what, they were all nominated for Nobel Prize in Economic Science. If you are not sure, verify it with someone having a PhD in economics or finance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qynrh (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- WjBscribe 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable, tho not presented in quite the standard cut-and-dried format. It should not be necesary to be an expert in the field to recognize notability, and it isn't. The publications are sufficient. DGG 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:PROF? --Mus Musculus 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it needs work. Some POV phrasing, and it definitely needs cleanup to conform to style. Notability is proved, however, to my satisfaction. Realkyhick 04:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete regardless of notability, this is blatant self promotion, and very probably falls under WP:CSD. Wikipedia does not publish personal CVs.--cj | talk 17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * commentthe paragraph of self-advertising has been removed, along with some unnecessary duplication. The cure for puffery is editing, not deletion--though I will admit that the possibility of deletion is a powerful incentive for proper editing of bios. G11 is for material that cannot be edited into reasonable form. DGG 22:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, despite the comments above, notability per WP:PROF is not proved in the slightest. This is a garden variety professor who has published papers and books and spoken at conferences just like every other professor.  No evidence of anything to set him apart from the rest. --Mus Musculus 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment,
 * I do appreciate your position, but please understand that the article needs to explain how he is notable, per WP:PROF, and back it up with verifiable, reliable, independent sources. It does not do that.  I cannot find the information myself, so I am contesting your assertion that he is notable for this encyclopedia.  If you can prove he is notable using one or more of the criteria listed in WP:PROF before this discussion runs its course, I will be happy to change my position. --Mus Musculus 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me get the facts straight. The references of the entry Lin Chen consist of  five items. The first two are Prof Chen’s publications. You can consider them not independent, even not reliable. How about the other three?  They are written by renowned scholars in the field. Are what they said  reliable, independent and verifiable? Have you taken a look at them?  Let me tell you what they are about. The third item devotes a chapter to discuss Chen model; the fourth item, a review article, devotes a section to discuss Chen model. The last one, another literature survey  covering the history of modern finance,  lists Prof. Chen among the leading contributors to the theory of finance.  The aforementioned facts should qualify Lin Chen all the criteria, not just one or two,  listed in WP:PROF.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qynrh (talk • contribs).


 * Abstain. I elect to not vote in this case, but urge to respectful languages.Wen Hsing 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article appears to assert sufficient notabiliy with respect to the prof's work on interest rate modelling, and sources are provided. The article clearly needs a lot of work, including additional verification of the claims asserted, but I think we need to give it a chance.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2007 (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.