Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wang

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Falls WP:PROF Shrike (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in fact speedy keep. I am rather surprised by this nomination and the nominator's claim that the subject does not pass WP:PROF. The subject has held named chair/named professor appointments at two major universities (Univ of New Mexico and UC San Diego), so already passes WP:PROF#C5 on those grounds. The Awards section lists several significant awards (I added regs for some of them), and elected society fellowships (I added a ref for one of them), so passes WP:PROF#C3 too. Google Scholar gives him the h-index of 152:[1]. Together with the awards, that's certainly enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. Probably passes some other criteria of WP:PROF as well (e.g. WP:PROF#C8) as the editor-in-chief of an important journal). Nsk92 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:PROF #C1, #C2, #C3, #C5, #C8, and probably also (for the books) WP:AUTHOR. And a trout to the nominator for making such an inane and badly informed nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as clearly above. A double trout for the nominator for making such an inadequate and time wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2018 (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.