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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:10Z

Yun Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Despite her various areas of involvement, this professor simply doesn't seem notable enough in any of her fields. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notablity.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Strong KeepShe is an associate professor, and associate professors are not always notable , and Oklahoma , though respectable, is not one of the really most prestigious research university is cosmology. But she is, according to the Science article listed on he home page , "Yun Wang, a cosmologist at the University of Oklahoma in Norman and leader of the JEDI project." I put a link on the article, and will get references tomorrow. Her home page claims "Annual citations from Science Citation Index: 290 (Year 2006); 280 (Year 2005); 170 (Year 2004)" a way of expressing it which is new to me. I am at a loss to know the exact meaning of "no assertion of notability"--does it mean that an assertion that someone is an (associate) professor of physics is inherently not notable? Or does it mean that she has to say in her first sentence that being an (associate) professor of physics is notable? But it could, reasonably, mean not a sufficient assertion to stand up on its own without some more documentation. DGG 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the refs. She is a/the principal investigatory on a major proposed astrophysics project, b/the subject of an article about her in ISI Essential Scientific Indicators, the principal subject of an article in the NY Times, a joint subject of one in Science and one in Nature. She clearly is one of the Associate Professors who are notable at that intermediate step in their ( I added the quote from ISI to the article.) However, I know nothing about her poetry. This time, she isn't to blame for the modesty--clearly someone else did the article. Again, people should check in at least Google Scholar, where "Yun Wang" Oklahoma has 68 articles, including the most cited one. Qualifies under any possible interpretation of N. DGG 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well Cited and referenced as cosmologist, passes wp:prof.--Buridan 11:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable as PI on a major astronomical survey. Needs cleanup to avoid CV appearance. --Dhartung | Talk 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I did some cleanup to make the article read a little better. Anville 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not in a position to assess notability, but Wikipedia is not paper. It appears to be reasonably well-sourced, so I don't see the problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Thomas (talk • contribs)

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.