Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electromagnetic Vector Sensor

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. Marked as a copyvio. Tone 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic Vector Sensor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article looks suspiciously like promotion of K. T. Wong's academic publications, complete with an external link to his website. The tone is more like original research than encyclopedia article, and it is not documented how the long list of references is supposed to demonstrate notability of the concept. A previous instance of the article, Electromagnetic vector sensor, was speedily deleted as blatant advertisement, but I would like to get the community's opinions on this issue. Favonian (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom here. Pretty clear WP:OR, reads just like a research paper of dubious origin anyway. Athe Weatherman 14:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not written at an appropriate level for Wikipedia, but the topic is covered in hundreds of academic publications, and the article provides a bunch of relevant references. Could undoubtedly be improved a lot but I don't feel that it needs to be deleted. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Search for "Electromagnetic Vector Sensor" (exact phrase) on Web of Science returns 18 journal articles from 1995 to 2009. WoS is a dedicated engine and having more than a few journal article hits there suggests notability. The article is poorly formatted, but that is usual for WP newcomers. WP:OR - doesn't seem to me; Cleanup needed - yes; promotion of Wong - yes, but the cleanup will sort this out by chopping his refs. I don't see enough reasons for deletion. A word of a specialist in this area would be helpful. Who would be willing to cleanup is a good question. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looks like the author paid attention to the constructive criticism: [1]. A number of the references to his own articles as well as the external link to his website are now gone. Favonian (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blatant copyvio: article is a straight paste from IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems April 2001, a scan of which can be downloaded from http://www.eie.polyu.edu.hk/~enktwong/ktw/WongKT_AEST0401.pdf, copyrighted article by K. T. Wong. MuffledThud (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (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.