Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas L. Tang


 * 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   delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas L. Tang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In this plethora of words I find no indication of notability, whether it be via the GNG or some index. That this is a narrative resume written by the subject is obvious; that it needs to go is clear as well. Note also The Love of Money and its history. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I find a GS h-index of 7 at best. Not enough to pass WP:Prof or support this vast construction. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete. I tried to steer the author into a more careful and collaborative direction, but he seems more interested in the promotional possibilities of Wikipedia than the encyclopedic focus. Have now AfD'd The Love of Money. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Give us a link to its AfD debate and put it in the appropriate discussion groups. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC).
 * You found it, obviously, but for future reference (once the article is deleted or the AfD link is gone from it) the AfD is Articles for deletion/The Love of Money. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Local university awards are not enough for WP:PROF and there seems nothing else. In addition, this is puffed up far beyond what any reliable third-party sources can support. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Ray  Talk 16:10, 3 March 2013 (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.