- 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. Biblio worm 20:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Christopher Ho Chee Kong
- Christopher Ho Chee Kong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article for non-notable physician. The standard is WP:PROF, which goes primarily by citations. The citation frequency in Google Scholar is : 42, 42, 41,29, 23, 20, 13., with only 11 publications having received 11 or more citations. This is altogether below the level of notability for a notable research in medical science. No major positions: associate professor, not professor, committee member not chair, member of societies, not elected fellow or officer, (Fellow of RSSurgeons is a professional title, not an honour, editorial board and peer reviewer, not ed. in chief. The references are almost entirely mere notices. the claim of being the only person to have passed a particular specialty exam in one country for a foreign certification is not a claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I found no signs of better notability and improvement with my best search results here (local passing mention) and here (several) and it's worth noting I would've nominated this myself but I asked DGG for familiar insight whether Christopher Ho Chee Kong was notable or not. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- So... what you are saying is that there is notability AND reliable sources?! The more I read about notability and reliable sources, the more illogical they become! -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 15:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
WeakDelete -- citations are not there for a US or European doctor, but perhaps an expert on Malaysian medicine could report whether these numbers are significant coverage in Malaysian medicine. But without such evidence, I don't see it as notable by WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- for notability under WP:PROF, it's been the practice here that the standard of notability as an expert is international. For other topics, such as many in sports or poloitics , it's otherwise & we go to some extent country by country.. For yet other, such as literature, where coverage is very poor for certain countries, we apply flexile standards. But science is international.
DGG (
talk ) 06:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification about science and medicine; I believe that the standard shouldn't change for literature and other humanities where publications are still generally done in the local language, but happy to defer to your greater experience on science AfDs. Changing Weak Delete to full Delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- for notability under WP:PROF, it's been the practice here that the standard of notability as an expert is international. For other topics, such as many in sports or poloitics , it's otherwise & we go to some extent country by country.. For yet other, such as literature, where coverage is very poor for certain countries, we apply flexile standards. But science is international.
DGG (
talk ) 06:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether this article should be deleted, but I would like to nuance the claim "associate professor, not professor" made above. It is true that he holds the title associate professor, but this does not mean that he is not a professor in the American and most common sense of the term. The Malaysian (and Australian, New Zealand etc) title professor is used much more restrictively than in the US. The title associate professor in those countries corresponds to reader in the UK, and is one step above an American associate professor, at roughly the same level as an American full professor. After your PhD, you typically start out at the lecturer level (=US assistant professor), then get promoted to senior lecturer (=US associate professor), then to associate professor (named reader in most Commonwealth countries), and finally perhaps to the professor rank, which is a higher rank than the usual full professor rank in eg the US. So in regard to rank, he should be treated as similar to a normal full professor in the US. Regards, Najwa Yong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najwa Yong ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the significance is gradually changing in most countries more to the US system. But in any case, since being a full professor is not formally a requirement or sufficient proof in WP:PROF, it's not of key importance. What's equally important is the quality of the university. Though not a formal requirement, I am fairly sure that nobody having a position of full professor in a US or Canadian major research university has failed to pass afd in the last 5 or 6 years , except in cases where there is prejudice against a certain field--interestingly, often the traditionally female-majority fields of Education, nutrition, etc. , or where there is prejudice due to the person holding an unconventional opinion. Najwa Yong ( talk · contribs), it is unfortunately possible that people with equivalent positions in other systems may not have passed afd due to our lack of understanding, even in first-rate research universities. But in any even the research record here doesn't meet WP:PROF, and that's the actually determining factor. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, I have no opinion on whether this article should be deleted, or whether being a full professor in the US sense is enough. But Commonwealth countries such as Malaysia (as well as Australia and New Zealand) consistently use an entirely different rank system than the US, where associate professor is the title of a rank one step higher than its US namesake. Also, if the institution is of importance, I'd like to add that the National University of Malaysia, where Christopher Ho Chee Kong works, is one of Malaysia's five main research universities and ranks comparatively high in international rankings. Regards, Najwa Yong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najwa Yong ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 December 2015 (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.