- 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. Enigma msg 07:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Edwin Liu
- Edwin Liu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's just look like copy-paste of newsletters from ITRI. John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) 08:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 08:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: If it's unambiguous copyright infringement, articles for deletion isn't the proper course of action. A speedy-delete tag can be applied to garner administrator attention. Independently of copyright violation, subject is indeed notable as IEEE fellow. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ カム 09:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @ John123521:, Chronocam is right regarding CSD being the correct mechanism for copyright infringement. Could you link the source it's supposed to be plagarised from - I looked at a couple, and it was paraphrased correctly from them, and proving a negative is slow work. Article is notable, so copyvio would be only grounds for deletion Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I doubt if we are questioning the notability of the subject here. So I just run some CV checks eg.g Earwig's CVC and it appears it is just minimal and ineligible for g12. It is actually more of close paraphrasing and that appears only in the lead section. I rewrote some of that parts. Also the block of text in career/awards sections can lead to false positive since such list may not necessarily be copyvio. The article only needs some more cleanup, but deletion is not that cleanup. – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. IEEE Fellow is enough by itself. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:41, 8 May 2018 (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.