Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinsheng Ling

Xinsheng Ling

Xinsheng Ling (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)

Dyling123, a major contributor to this article who claims to be the creator (it was created by an IP), has requested deletion on behalf of the subject on their talk page . The subject clearly meets the requirements of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep A Fellow of the American Physical Society seems notable enough to merit an article (WP:PROF criterion 3 to be specific). ElKevbo (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PROF. If there's any private information, such as a direct email/website, please identify and remove. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, Fellowship in the APS (easily verified via their website) would qualify for wiki-notability per WP:PROF#C3. It would help to know why the creator wishes the article deleted, since it looks about as uncontroversial and boilerplate as his faculty profile. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I checked the article over for anything remotely personal or controversial but saw nothing except the date of birth, which could be changed to the year. However there have been repeated attempts to blank the article or remove material going back to Dec 2018 and Dyling123 states on their talk page that the subject requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think WP:NPROF allows us to count the faculty profile as one source, but we still need one (two would better per WP:THREE) that is about the subject. I keep coming back to nutshell point #1 of WP:NPROF, which I don't think is passed. Doug Mehus T·C 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Espresso Addict. Fails WP:GNG. There's only one article that even comes close to reliable, independent source coverage in the Boston BizJournal here and even, then, it may be non-qualifying trivial coverage. The two "keep" !votes are (a) reminded this is not a vote and (b) that passing an SNG like WP:NPROF does not confer WP:Notability. It's more or less a rough guideline that, typically, professors are notable, but they are, expressly and unequivocally, not substitutes for WP:GNG. This professor has lots of co-author mentions in research papers and for writing chapters of textbooks, but there's nothing about him that is both in-depth and at length. Thus, it's a hard delete. I don't see any other way this can close, to be honest; failing that,

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and my comments to Espresso Addict below. This article is of marginal quality and importance to the encyclopedia, at best, and nothing will be lost from deletion. If closing admin wishes to verify, through Oversight, the subject's identity (although the username does suggest a link), that is fine; however, in that event, I think we should draftify pending verification from Oversight so it's not indexed by Google. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have always read that WP:PROF is an alternative GNG for people who unequivocally fall under it? That's certainly what it currently states. Otherwise I suspect ~99% of our coverage of living academics is deletable, which would be a bit depressing. Perhaps DGG or another expert could clarify? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, We've had that debate at DRV a number of times. DGG is a good possibility, as are @S Marshall and Bearcat:. I don't think it's an alternative to GNG, but rather the SNG is like a guideline (an essay, within the policy, if you will) that says they're likely to be notable but is not a substitute. Doug Mehus T·C 02:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

And yes, a lot of our biographies, arguably, are delete-able. I'm not sure what the exact numbers are, but I wager there's, conservatively, ~5-10% of our 6 million articles that fail WP:GNG—most of it probably companies and some biographies. Doug Mehus T·C 02:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Also note the "general notes," particularly the latter one, which states, "Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications. The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." Doug Mehus T·C 02:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, when googling my current history instructor, I noticed Craig Keating, who was previously a municipal councillor, had his article PRODed per WP:NPOLITICIAN but, equally so, he wouldn't pass WP:GNG and he is also a professor/instructor, so I really don't think the SNGs are a substitute for the GNG. Doug Mehus T·C 02:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Not an expert in historians, but I don't see Professor Keating's citation record as meeting WP:PROF at present, so I am not sure how useful a comparator he makes. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability, referred to above, states that a topic is presumed to be notable if It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right, the very first of which is WP:PROF. Subject-specific guidelines are, explicitly, alternatives to the GNG. And this individual evidently meets WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the debate; there's no consensus on that. Doug Mehus T·C 03:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, From the nutshell of WP:NPROF, it states, "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources." In short, WP:NPROF lets us count the fact they're a professor as one of the sources, but they still need to be the subject of one or more reliable, independent sources on which to write more than a perpetual stub-class article saying so-and-so exists and is a professor. Doug Mehus T·C 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

And the very next line of the nutshell says, Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. When comparing against the lengthy history of AfD's on academics and educators, it is absolutely clear that Xinsheng Ling passes WP:PROF and qualifies for an article. It's the criteria in WP:PROF that are passed or failed (and only passing one of them is necessary), not the nutshell bullet points, which merely summarize what the guideline itself explains in greater depth. The question is how passing WP:PROF stacks up against WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. XOR'easter (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

But that second line is a guideline; it's not a rule, therein lies the difference. At the end of the day, we don't have to resolve the GNG or SNG debate today for the purposes of this AfD, if the subject has requested deletion, we should honour it. The article, as written is of marginal importanance—at best—to the encyclopedia as his notability level (assuming it exists) is not great. In short, nothing will be lost from deletion. If the administrator wants to involve Oversight to verify the subject's identity, that's fine, but I'm willing to take the subject's request to Espresso Addict at his word. Doug Mehus T·C 03:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, True...he's probably not many papers to his name, though I assumed that the number of papers one is cited in doesn't count for anything really other than establishing the subject's occupation and potentially to a bit of trivia in the section on their research, if they meet our notability standards. And, of course, the citations help to establish the professor as an authoritative source in their field in terms of being able to use them or quote them in related articles, but beyond that, I don't know that one's citations from OrcID or CrossRef count at all, really, towards notability. Doug Mehus T·C 03:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That is where we definitely differ, Dmehus -- I look to citation record (or at least the best Google Scholar can do as a proxy) to assess whether the subject meets WP:PROF #1, both at AfD and when creating biographical articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but see my above reply to XOR'easter. I don't think we can discount nutshell point #1 of WP:NPROF. There's no other significant coverage beyond the primary source biography of this professor. I think we need one other, in-depth and at-length source about the professor to pass WP:NPROF. Doug Mehus T·C 03:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this interpretation of WP:PROF, and I think that you will find many others in this forum do. However, I don't think it is particularly relevant here. There is independent coverage (see my note below), there is the APS fellowship with its citation, the citation record seems strong... the questions seem to me to be (1) whether the subject is sufficiently notable to require an article even though an editor states that the subject requests deletion; and (2) whether consensus is that Dyling123 actually represents the subject's wishes. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your lecturing of the (very experienced) editors who have voiced a different opinion is misplaced and inappropriate. Additionally, it's inappropriate for you to have posted two separate !votes; I recommend reformatting your initial response so it's clear to the closer that you're making an extended argument and not attempting to mislead anyone with multiple !votes. ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think everyone here's been round the block more than a few times, and Doug's comments are only signed once, so should not pose too much of a headache for the closing admin. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• ETA: By the way, if you use the full name "Xinsheng Sean Ling" there appears to be some coverage eg of his work and of his former company (and other similar). Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• First, WP:PROF is an alternative. The status of some of the other SNGs may be debatable, but this has been firmly settled for the last 12 years or so. The criterion for whether someone is regarded as an authority is the same as that used in the academic world. The basic way of determining this in the sciences and other fields where research is publishedin periodical articles, is the citations to the pere-reviewed particles representing the scientist's original research. The convenient way to determine this is Google Scholar. In field where ones original work is published in books, we go principally by book reviews, and sometimes also by citations or library holdings.

These ae not absolute numbers, but are compared with work of other s in the field. The expectedcitations in a field depends upon the publication and citation density--how much is published, and how many articles each publication cites. As a rough guide, in biomedical sciences, the field where people publish as many papers as possible, and cite other papers exhaustively, it's generally accepted here that 1 or 2 papers with citations over 100 are evidence of notability. The number of articles or citations is irrelevant (though universities PR people usually give them, because the numbers sound impressive.) One does not become notable by doing a great deal of unimportant work which makes no impact on the field, but by doing very important work that influences many other researchers.

I consider it not at all the case that we need significant coverage by a third party source to meet WP:PROF, and I do not think that Expesso Addict would be able to find more than a few stray examples of afds determined in that fashion. We do needs ome evidence of who the person is, and any reliable source will do for the identification. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. Popular areas of physics seem fairly exhaustively cited too, and some of Ling's work appears to fall under DNA sequencing. But in terms of WP:PROF, the fellowship of the APS alone seems adequate; I assume their systems are far better than ours for assessing truly important contributions to the field. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Just to clear things up:
  • We should be following consensus of the community rather than bickering over the text.
  • The latest consensus IIRC is here, which resulted in clear consensus that PROF is not subversive to GNG.

• Keep. on the basis of the fellowship of the APS. The purpose of this part of the WP:PROF standard is as a shortcut--any fellow of the APS or NAS or AAAS will be so notable, that there's no point even looking for citations.

Since we're having the discussion, the justification behind WP:PROF is that almost no notable professors get genuine press coverage (as distinct from coverage instigated by their university's PR office) unless they are actuall famous. But the standard for inclusion in WP isn't famous, and if we followed GNG in this fashion we'd have everyone in all fields who is even barely notable and for researchers, only the famous. It would be essentially equivalent in impact to our not covering state but only federal legislators, or only athletes who win 1st place in the olympics, or only the film actors who win an academy award. Had this not carried, I and some of the others interested in this proposed that we intended to justify notability by looking for third party comments about hte people's work in the papers by other people that cited them. Not every citation includes a substantial discussion of the work; it differs by field, but in most fields perhaps 10% of them do. That means that the standard for notability of scientists would be that they published 1 paper referred to be 20 people, or 10 papers referred to by 2 people each. This is a very low standard, and would cover almsot all assistant professors at a research university, and a tens of thousands of post-docs and graduate students.  :::The real reason for WP:PROF is that WP should reflect the real world. The academic world has its standards, and they depend on publication and citation. The standard used by a university like MIT and Cambridge and Peking for notability is a more reliable guide than ours. Their faculty are better able to judge notability than we are. So, under the current interpretation for the other SNGs, academic are the one field where notability in WP is equivalent to importance in the RW. I've been advocating for the past 11 years that other fields follow our example, and have a rational standard, not a standard that has no meaning outside WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comments Thanks, DGG, for the clarification on the role of SNGs and GNG. It will be interesting to see if S Marshall or Bearcat decide to share their thoughts on GNG/SNGs. Nevertheless, this very short stub-class article adds very little value to the encyclopedia and nothing would be lost by a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion. I would note, too, that no editors have specifically opposed deletion on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion grounds, and two editors (myself included) are or seem supportive of granting such a request. I think, out of respect, that's something we have to consider here, and if the closing administrator wants to involve Oversight to verify the requestor's identity, as I said above, that is fine, but since it's been requested, we should be draftify-ing this at least until (a) Oversight verifies the identity of the requestor and closes as "delete" (in such a case, I'd support administrator-level salt-ing of the Main: namespace article title or (b) the requestor doesn't respond to Oversight's request within the requisite guided timeline and moves the draftified article back to the Main: namespace. --Doug Mehus T·C 11:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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.