Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tao Yang (Wuxi)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tao Yang (Wuxi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Also see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Computational Cognition (2nd nomination). —Ruud 11:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's a long list of books in the article. With one exception, they're either self published (Yang's Scientific Press) or published by Nova Publishers, not directly a major publisher either. No evidence that any of these books has drawn much attention or made any significant impact. Does not meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep' Not a major researcher, but certainly some contribution to the field. Given the vast number of WP articles devoted to one-game footballers and utterly un-notable rappers, if we're going to purge our vanity pages, I wouldn't be looking at this one for starters.Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is fallacious: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Qworty (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails all of the requirements of WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.This case is a bit confusing because there's a different more famous computer scientist named Tao Yang at UCSB. But his book Impulsive control theory (published by a major academic publisher, Springer) has 329 citations in Google scholar, and his Impulsive systems and control: theory and applications (despite the unimpressive publisher) has 176. To me that seems enough to make a case for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I checked a few of the citations in Google Scholar and while I indeed found several legitimate citations the number might be inflated somewhat. I found some articles that did not reference the book at all and quite a few self-citations (including those from the International Journal of Computational Cognition) or e.g. citations from articles published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Something does not smell quite right about this whole situation—not least of the suspicious language that used to be present on Unicogse. —Ruud 00:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The titles of his publications listed in the article here do look very fringy, I have to admit. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The fringy nature of his work, the past history of citation spamming of the Chaos Solitons & Fractals crowd, and the apparent walled garden of related articles here (many of which are now also up for deletion) means that I think we need stronger evidence than citation counts in this case, and I don't know where that evidence is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked a few of the citations in Google Scholar and while I indeed found several legitimate citations the number might be inflated somewhat. I found some articles that did not reference the book at all and quite a few self-citations (including those from the International Journal of Computational Cognition) or e.g. citations from articles published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Something does not smell quite right about this whole situation—not least of the suspicious language that used to be present on Unicogse. —Ruud 00:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.