Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erkin Sidick

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. MER-C 10:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erkin Sidick[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject fails WP:GNG, with the only reliable source coverage consisting of brief passing mentions. The subject is a successful engineer, but falls short of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria with relatively low citation stats for his optics publications (eight with 30-131 Google Scholar citations, remainder in the 0-30 range) and an absence of evidence for satisfying the other NACADEMIC criteria, e.g. no major awards or positions (there are thousands of senior engineers at NASA).

Article recently had a contested PROD, and notability tags since 2014 placed by Discospinster. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record is a little below the threshold for WP:PROF#C1 for me. Being an Uyghur engineer in the US is unusual and mildly intriguing but in-depth media coverage (more than just a brief quote in a wider story) would be needed for actual notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is better known as an activist for Uyghur causes rather than as an academic, so WP:NACADEMIC is the wrong criteria here. Sources in Chinese - [1] (in a substantial section that describes him as a dangerous separatist), Uyghur [2] (biography), and English [3]. Most of the other sources in various languages give short but sometimes more substantial quotes from him - [4][5][6][7][8], which collectively indicate some worldwide interest in his activity and therefore some degree of notability. Worth keeping as a voice for a victimised minority. Hzh (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if a Sina article (sourced from state-owned news media) nor Meripet exactly count as independent reliable sources for WP:GNG. The LAist interview is also on the edge of being a secondary source, since it is a "Meet __" type of radio interview. The other passing mentions and quotes shouldn’t count towards GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Chinese news sources are controlled in some way by the Chinese government, so unless you want to remove all Chinese news sources, then the point is moot. In any case the independence in GNG refers to independence from the subject, which the Chinese government is. The point is still that Chinese news sources considered him significant enough to write about him. Some of the news sources rely on what he said, therefore they are not just simple quotes, but independent articles where the information he provided becomes the subject of the article. Hzh (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it’s not exactly reliable, not that it’s not independent. News article coverage about the subject of his quotes still don’t constitute significant coverage about Sidick himself. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in a list of WP:DEPRECATED sources. As far as reliability goes, it would be the same as any other news outlet in China. I have already given sources in Chinese and English, there are sure to be sources in Uyghur, e.g. [9] (a search at that one site turns up plenty of hits - [10]). I'm also pretty sure you can find it in other languages like other Turkic languages if you know how to search for his name. It is enough for GNG. The other articles on his quotes are simply additions, just showing that the wider world has taken notice of him. Hzh (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a trivial mention and a primary source. This is a recipe for deletion (see WP:GNG)! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:GNG, which includes this section, say that this is a recipe for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three more sources (one in English, one in Chinese, one in Uyghur) that are non-primary and with good coverage of the person. There are a few hundred sources in the Uyghur language, most of them just trivial mentions, but others are more substantial, and it requires time and effort to go through all of them, but there should be a few dozens of them that focus on him. Hzh (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2020 (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.