Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yongge 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. The arguments to delete are stronger (and at least one of the arguments to keep sounds strangely like an argument to delete). Given the borderline nature of this case there is no prejudice against creating an article about this person should notability be established. Shereth 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yongge Wang

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. I don't think he quite passes WP:PROF just yet. Ray Talk 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - not overwhelming, but sufficient cites at GScholar to establish that his work has had an impact on his field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment h-index is around 11, books look to be in-house monographs. Abductive (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:PROF; significant body of work. JJL (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep being a mathematician from the United States is not enough for ensuring notability. It should be proven that he had meaningful impact on his field Rirunmot (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep see the discussion above. Top cites on GS are 109, 59, 56. bordeline. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. The article needs more information on why he's notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an article can't be a CV. Abductive (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete On the basis of citations to his work. For this purpose, h indexes are meaningless, because he would have an h index of 11 if he had 11 papers with 11 cites each, or 10 papers with 100 cites and one with 11. What he actually has, for the published papers is a total of 33 citations in other published papers, with the maximum cites 26,13, 2, 2, .... and 41 non-journal conference proceedings in Citeseer, with maximum citation 10, 4, 3, ...  The Citeseer results can be more signifcant that the formal papers in his subject, but they distribution confirms  the paper count.   The distribution in GScholar confirms, tho it lists a miscellany of material, and is hard to interpret. On the whole, though there are certainly enough papers, this is not a record that shows any really distinguished work. DGG (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I agree with DGG that the citation record is a little too slim to make a convincing case for passing WP:PROF #1, and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), but maybe not yet there. Does not seem to meet other WP:PROF criteria. Here are some stats based on about 15 years or work, generated with Harzing’s PoP citation analysis software - Papers: 77 (3 with cites > 50); Total cites: 518; Cites/year: 34.53; Cites/paper: 6.73; h-index: 11. Pretty good numbers, but I would want to see a few more papers cited above 50, an h-index >= 15, or another indication (many libraries holding a book), to recommend a clear “keep” based on criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (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.