Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kschischang

Frank Kschischang[edit]

Frank Kschischang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(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]
• Snow Keep. IEEE Fellow is conclusive. Looks like we all agree on this one – good work, all. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep. Along with the IEEE fellow, the Canada Research Chair is a pass of WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2010 (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.