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 keep. The only delete !vote after David Eppstein's rewrite clearly didn't read the article as it currently stands and the previous delete !votes no longer apply to the current article. SoWhy 20:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fei-Yue Wang[edit]

Fei-Yue Wang (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)

This article has been something of a problem: It is created and maintained by a SPA, and has been twice deleted (once for copyright violation) before being recreated. Sourcing is a major problem, and the subject falls very short of WP:GNG requirements. Perhaps it is time for this to be deleted and salted. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IEEE has more than 400,000 members, so being one of that very large crowd does not warrant standalone Wikipedia biographical coverage. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand the difference between a fellow and a member, you shouldn't be involved in deletion discussions of academics. The number of new IEEE fellows in any year is limited to 0.1% of the total membership, and the level of accomplishment needed to attain this distinction is generally well above that needed for a full professorship at a good research university. That's why WP:PROF specifically calls this out as one of its criteria for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF is a guideline, not an editorial rule, and the page itself says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The argument you are making is that every IEEE fellow deserves a Wikipedia article, even if there is no sourcing whatsoever to back up any other evidence of notability. This article appears to be either self-promotion by the professor or an overactive display of promotion by one of his students or peers. In none of its multiple forms has it ever come close to standard WP:GNG or WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if the content in an article fails to establish notability of the subject. That is simply a matter of improving the article if the subject is notable. What we are concerned with in a notability AFD is whether or not the subject is notable, regardless of what is in the article. See WP:ARTN Meters (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:GNG and WP:BIO are guidelines, so your "WP:PROF is a guideline" appears to be content-free. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:VERIFY is policy and there is no verification that this guy has accomplished anything that is notable. Wefihe (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IEEE and AAAS fellowships are very easily verifiable, if you would only take the effort to look for sources yourself as WP:BEFORE requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose using the convention bio as a source. I said "with verification" Meters (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh, where's the verification? Guess what? There is none. And you don't need to be an IEEE member or fellow to figure that out. Wefihe (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see see WP:ARTN. It's not whether the article currently demonstrates his notability, it's whether the subject is notable. He appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Meters (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! WP:NACADEMIC clearly states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Where are the reliable sources to verify this guy makes the cut? Wefihe (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out there on the net, if you would only take the effort to look for them. They are in no way required to already be in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better idea: you look for them. After all, you are claiming that these sources exist, so get off your rump and find them. Without verified reliable sources, this article has no value here. Wefihe (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as a post-script - UA News from the University of Arizona is not a verifiable source. That's marketing material from the school's public relations office; Wang worked at the school, so there is a huge conflict of interest. That should not be allowed in the article - and, for that matter, all editors should be allowed to edit the article, not just the ones that are trying to keep it. Wefihe (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reality Check All of the sources cited in the article are either from Wang's employers or the trade groups where he holds positions. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. A total failure of WP:VERIFY. Wefihe (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely normal for biographies of academics (who else would you expect to publish this sort of material?), and calling these learned societies "trade groups" indicates a big failure of understanding. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal for biographies that don't belong on Wikipedia. As for IEEE, I worked for them at one time and I can attest it is anything but a "learned society." As they used to say in the office, "Just make sure the checks don't bounce." Wefihe (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IEEE is not a "federal organization." It clearly identifies itself [1] as a "professional organization" - or, as another editor stated, a trade group. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Matt meant "federated", as in decentralized, rather than "federal", under the control of the federal government. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2017 (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.
More