Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor C. X. Wang


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Victor C. X. Wang

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article, which appears to have been written by its subject and has an odd relationship to its sources (for example, it lists Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a source for someone who is definitely not mentioned in the book and was, indeed, four years old when it was written) is about someone who doesn't seem to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Chick Bowen 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS cites negligible. Too early, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. Can't find any notable mentions in third party publications. Merely being a published author, even one who has written several textbooks and numerous journal articles, is insufficient to establish notability under WP:N. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Wang has added a reference to being Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology to his page. However, as the relevant section of WP:PROF states "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area", and this journal started in 2010 and appears to have published only one quarterly issue, I'm not changing my stance. I can't imagine a journal being any less well-established and still actually existing.  Perhaps in a year, though, there may be sufficient notability if the journal prospers.  If the author wants to move the article to userspace until then, I'd definitely support that—although, given his behavior in editing the article so far, that may not be an option for long. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Suggest salting Given that even though he was cited for edit-warring on this page, is still editing away on his own page, has not responded to any messages left on his talk page, has blatantly ignored the notices on the article (e.g., don't delete the AfD template), and hasn't bothered responding here... I suspect that if the article is deleted, he his highly likely to try recreating it in short order.  Therefore, I suggest that if the AfD outcome is "delete", the page should be salted to avoid further edit-warring. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:ACAD Vrivers (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, his academic contributions are mainly as an editor and to teaching aids rather than to quality publications. Fails WP:PROF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. What about all these books? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a book, or many books, published doesn't establish notability under the above quoted guidelines. To be notable, other sources must talk about the subject. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's odd, certain frequent contributors to AfD discussions on professors point to editorship/authorship or one or two books as proof of notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if you look through the guidelines, you'll see that mere editorship doesn't mean much, but being Editor-in-Chief of a notable work does; being published a lot doesn't necessarily count, but publishing one particularly notable work (as backed up by citations in other sources) does, as does having a number of published journal articles that are themselves widely cited by others in their journal articles. As I've said, this fellow is on the cusp right now.  It doesn't help that the current article is an autobiography; if kept, it will have to be stubbed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (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.