Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ming Jiang

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. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Jiang

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

Biography of a non-notable academic. The article reads like a résumé and indeed the only cited source is the subject's résumé. He does not meet WP:GNG and though he has some awards I do not believe they are big enough, or that he has made sufficient impact, for him to qualify under WP:PROF. BethNaught (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it indeed reads like a resume and is cited to his resume. He's a Senior member of the IEEE but not a Fellow, so falls (just) short of meeting WP:PROF notability criteria. But he's obviously a possibility for Fellowship in the future. Not notable yet. Sionk (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there are some high cites on Google scholar for Ming Jiang, but I'm not sure that it is right person. Would the nominator like to come up with an h-index? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I think this is a reasonably accurate search. It at least seems to cut out all the other Ming Jiangs but I suspect it misses some of his publications. Anyway, it gets citation numbers (in some strange unsorted order) of 252, 226, 70, 46, 44, 43, 39, 29, 24, 24, ... and an h-index of 12. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would be a reasonably good index for a pure mathematician. I am not so sure in computer mathematics. Too early? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just to reiterate an obvious point: it's irrelevant what his h-index is if there are no independent reliable sources. We just cannot write a verifiable article without them, however much we might want to. This is of course particularly important for a living person. Deltahedron (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ Chinese Wikipedia doesn't mention him. He has an entry on Baidu but that fails WP:RS. There is a lengthy quote from him at the Microsoft China Research website here but nothing else notable that jumps out from a Chinese Google search. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. So far I don't find the evidence for WP:PROF convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 01:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable person. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- 101.117.109.221 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2014 (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.