This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Simply being an IEEE Fellow is not sufficient to meet either the general notability guidelines nor the ones for people or academics. Criteria #2 for academics states "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." and Criteria #3 states "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 which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE)." However, the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 7#IEEE Fellows are notable? was that being an IEEE Fellow by itself was insufficient. In other words, there had to be some other scintilla of notability added to the mere fact of being an IEEE Fellow, normally citation factors based on the work that earned the individual the IEEE honor. --Bejnar (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bejnar: Thank you for sharing your insights; this certainly is an age old debate/discussion which most certainly does come-up and exist even now. I see that you've shared and quoted a few guidelines and discussions, which, do be assured that I've gone through them all (except the discussion - which I've gone through now); however, I've created the article based on WP:NACADEMIC which states that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions..." and if I were to draw the attention towards point 3, it should pass notability "guidelines". As for the rest of the details pointed out, I believe that these cover them all - Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, Article content does not determine notability. I assure you that I understand that there needs to be a ton of work to be done here and having said that, the course of this debate would take better effect if applied towards modulating the legislature of the guidelines, as I still fail to see the problem with it's execution (i.e. the article has been created per norm). Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is "No"; my notability concerns have not been addressed. --Bejnar (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
