Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaojun 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. There certainly might be reason to revisit this decision, if additional sources are found. The consensus below is that the person fails WP:PROF, and is thus not notable. Xoloz 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Xiaojun Wang

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article establishes a bit of notability, but I don't believe it establishes enough. If this person is a professor there, then many have written books, it's not notable in and of itself. Wizardman 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete appears to fail WP:PROF, if no one else verify notability. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This was a modest and totally inadequate article, though the link was right there from which the nom. could have added the basics. I just did. He's a senior lecturer at Dublin City Univ., which I think corresponds to Assistant or Associate Professor at a US university. Published only 2 textbooks, 4 peer-reviewed papers (one in a top journal). 34 Conference papers--which are often very important in this subject--but I do not see any real indication of importance. Below the bar, though I hope someone knowing the subject could confirm my guess about the conference papers. DGG (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Senior lecturer would certainly be at least Associate Professor level, as I understand the US system, but it's not usually a tenured position. Espresso Addict 19:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Two peer-reviewed articles (the others appear to be prints of conference papers), plus two books with what look to be minor publishers. Although the Muresan et al. paper has 42 citations on Google Scolar, as Wang is neither the first nor last of the four authors this is hard to interpret. On balance, the subject seems to have an insufficient publication record to meet WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict 19:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete no firm assertion of notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Yes, I am aware he has motioned for a weak delete, but in this rare case I would prefer to err on the side of caution.  I feel that this person actually does meet WP:PROF guidelines given the works cited.  Burntsauce 17:11, 13 August 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.