Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kschischang: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:04, 3 September 2010

Frank Kschischang

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

I do not believe that the subject passes WP:PROF. His job and being a fellow do not automatically generate notability. No other evidence is given, and searching Google News and Google Books provides no secondary coverage; Google Scholar gives plenty of publications, but those alone don't make for notability. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:PROF (emphasis in original): "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions ... they are notable. ... 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)" Prof. Kschischang is a Fellow of the IEEE (among other organizations), as is clearly stated in the article. Therefore he satisfies the notability criterion. --S20451 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they select up to fifty fellows a year. That's not very selective. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy is right there in black and white. Also, there's the EIC fellowship. So I'm not sure how to respond. --S20451 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, per nom and per failing PROF. I just dont think there is enough meat on the article, and insufficient sources. The IEEE membership is close to the prof requirement, but I think nom comment (if correct) about 50 fellows per year is pretty convincing. If more sources are added or he becomes the dean i am willing to maybe change vote WildHorsesPulled (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised, since the WP:PROF guidelines specifically state that IEEE Fellow status is sufficient to be notable. I have added some additional details to the article but will add no more, since I am now confused about the guidelines for "notability" and feel like I might be wasting my time. --S20451 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected: S, I did not read all of your quote from WP:PROF. I certainly didn't think that the IEEE was mentioned in there, and, personally, fifty a year (according to our article) doesn't sound so selective--but you're right, it's there. Nomination withdrawn, with my apologies. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :I am surprised, since the [[WP:PROF]] guidelines specifically state that IEEE Fellow status is sufficient to be notable.  I have added some additional details to the article but will add no more, since I am now confused about the guidelines for "notability" and feel like I might be wasting my time. --[[User:S20451|S20451]] ([[User talk:S20451|talk]]) 00:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators|list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)</small>
+*I stand corrected: S, I did not read all of your quote from WP:PROF. I certainly didn't think that the IEEE was mentioned in there, and, personally, fifty a year (according to our article) doesn't sound so selective--but you're right, it's there. Nomination withdrawn, with my apologies. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)