Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul K Chu


 * 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 no consensus to delete. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul K Chu

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Article on a professor. The article claims enough to meet WP:PROF, but this is the third time the article has been created by User:Pkchu, and the notability rests on claims like "Prof. Chu is one of the world experts in plasma surface modification of materials." for which there are no sources and for which, personally, I don't think we can take the subject's word (no offense). Delete as a WP:VANITY article. Mango juice talk 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The claims are not backed up,  nor is any notability claims made/proven.  Tomstdenis 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable in his field at least. I assume we would have better luck at finding information if we could read Chinese scripts. User:Dimadick
 * Changing my vote to weak keep . I don't like to encourage vanity articles, but, I verified that Chu is an IEEE Fellow, which is a pretty big honor and may be enough to meet WP:PROF.  Mango juice talk 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep City U Hong Kong is a major univ, ,and he's department chair. IEEE Tran. Polymer Science is a decent journal, and he's ed. in chief. People do not get such positions without   impressive lists of publications, so I checked quickly in  google scholar and found 366 hits, which normally means at least 150 papers when you sort them out. I found his publication list on the university website. Look at the article to see what I found. I just summarized the numbers, because I havent't the energy to copy and paste all of them and get them lined up properly.  Pkchu is apparently a modest man indeed. world expert is probably exactly the right term, but I changed it to what could be objectively documented: internationally known' .  Now I shouldn't have had to do this. Someone who knows him should have. But how did he get deleted 2X and almost a 3rd time? DGG 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish academic notability. As this is apparently a vanity article created not once but three times in violation of Wikipedia guidelines about creating articles about yourself, this article should be judged by the harshest standards and Chu should be cut absolutely no slack.  Shaundakulbara 07:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment who may have created the article before or what it may have been like before is irrelevant.. We're looking at it now. We don't  have harsh standards and relaxed standards, we have one set of standards that we try to apply fairly to every article.   I have reedited it and removed anything that looked like puffery, and if you find any I missed, just remove it. That he is considered N is proven by the honors.   The one item of opinion, "internationally known" is established by the multiple visiting positions. The published articles, and patents are RS and V: the list of articles is from his official site, which is a RS for the purpose, and supplemented by Google Scholar, as a 3rd party The patents link to the government site.   For an academic to list his publications is not advertising, it is generally a university requirement.   I am a little curious just what part you find objectionable? DGG 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that DGG has improved the article, I no longer consider Vanity an issue. I now think we should keep.  Mango juice talk 02:45, 26 January 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.