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. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Ming Yang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability criteria for academics or the GNG. Author of handful of seldom-cited papers; the paper mention in the article as his claim to fame was cited only 4 times according to Google Scholar. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find only a handful of poorly cited papers in low-impact journals. Good job for getting a little spurt of press coverage for such a weak paper, but not notable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass any WP:PROF criterion, and the mainstream press attention for the mad cow – Alzheimer's connection is only one thing, and a small thing at that. (The other source in the article, about another piece of research, does not look reliable.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2015 (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.