Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dong Jun Wu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Secret account 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dong Jun Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent refs . Only refs are own University profile, own LinkedIn page and personal home page. No notability asserted and none obvious from article. Unclear why this has survived for so long. Just a personal puff piece. Velella Velella Talk 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. I don't think that Xxanthippe could have found a more suitable category. After carefully reviewing the history of the page and searching to see if Dong Jun Wu met any of the notability criterion, I agree that the professor does not meet WP:Prof and the article reads like WP:RESUME. However, I disagree that it is a personal fluff piece - multiple users have contributed, though the main ones came from two users which could, potentially, be the same. Still, the article, in my interpretation of Wikipedia policies, should be deleted. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not observed. Did not find any reliable reference. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2013 (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.