Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yejun Feng

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yejun Feng

[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)

Does not really assert any kind of notability, and one of the links is no longer giving any information about him. Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there are other sources out there about this guy, just need to be included in the article. Ie. a section about his actual research could be made. Sam-2727 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Associate professor, appears to fail WP:PROF. I'm unsure what sources User:Sam-2727 is talking about; just because there are several papers to write about his actual research doesn't mean WP:PROF is met. Timmyshin (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. GS h-index of around 17 just passes WP:Prof for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing coverage that meets the GNG or how he meets WP:NPROF. The h-index cited by Xxanthippe seems low for physics but I admit don't have a good feel for each field's notable h-index.Sandals1 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPROF says "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness" so I fail to see how that alone is a reason to keep above. While I know that page reduces the expectation for mass media coverage, personal lab websites are insufficient and I don't see any other sort of independent sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "article" consists of two sentences and doesn't really include a claim to notability, or any sources that demonstrate notability. --Tataral (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both current links are uninformative; he seems to have moved to Okinawa. His citation record isn't strong enough yet to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. I can find a couple press releases from Argonne about research he was involved in, but nothing independent enough to pass WP:GNG. And there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NPROF. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2019 (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.