Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gu Su

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Su

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

Possibly WP:YOURSELF – User:Gusunj has created an earlier incarnation of this article. I proposed its deletion in January 2007. User:Lectonar deleted it in February 2007, hopefully after careful deliberation. User:Gusunj resurrected the article in August 2008. According to WP:PROD, an article may be PRODed only once; I assume this extends to resurrections of deleted articles. Wikipeditor (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikipeditor (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN Jab843 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to me to be a leading Chinese scholar noted in China for bringing liberal political philosophy to the Chinese audience. I think we might argue there is evidence of notability via his published work. The article suggests that his Essential Ideas of Liberalism which is listed at Worldcat: Essential Ideas of Liberalism Gu, S. as Gu, S. (2003). Zi you zhu yi ji ben li nian =: Essential ideas of liberalism. Beijing: Zhong yang bian yi chu ban she. is his key work. Google Scholar lists this I think as 自由主义基本理念 and reports here GS:自由主义基本理念 91 citations. This seems a reasonably large amount of notice - notability - given GS poor coverage of Chinese Scholarship. One can find more of his work on Worldcat and then citations via GS but I am afraid my Mandarin skills are shall we say weak and I am reliant on the wonders of GTranslate but I think there seems enough for a keep. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case for keeping the article is strengthened by Su having a chapter in Keping Yu (2010) which makes available to English-language readers debates among prominent Chinese intellectuals and academics over issues of political, constitutional, and legal reform; modes of governance in urban and rural China; and culture and cultural policy (Yu Keping (2010) Democracy and the Rule of Law in ChinaLeiden: Brill) (Msrasnw (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Msrasnw has provided enough evidence that the subject is considered a leader in the field of Chinese liberalism. I note that this hasn't yet been flagged for the attention of editors interested in Chinese topics, which may explain the lack of participation here so far by people with a better ability to find sources in Chinese (although Msrasnw has made valiant efforts). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: I did not mean to imply the subject was not notable or that anything in the article was incorrect. I was under the impression that this project does not accept articles on a person created by that same person, not least because unless the subject is known well enough for such articles to attract significant contributions by other editors, they may tend to be very unbalanced, as their creators themselves would seem unlikely to include anything that might cast them in a negative light. After a more thorough look at WP:YOURSELF, I now understand the project’s policy is not that extreme and that the mere creation of an autobiography is not enough to warrant deletion. Wikipeditor (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Me too. Professor Gu Su is an important Chinese thinker and one of the leading, university-based, advocates of political reform. His work reflects this very well, as does his extensive connections throughout Chinese society. I realize creating your own pages is against Wikipedia's best practice rules, but it's not a vanity page but thoroughly merited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.225.134 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Citation alone proves nothing about the paper's notability (the citing paper either fail the "significant coverage" test or fails the fair use principle), let lone the author's. Need to find source focusing the person, but it looks like the person himself is unable to find them, there is no independent source in the Chinese Wikipedia article that has significant coverage of the person. I am unable to find independent source about the person myself (I searched articles from 2004 in Baidu news), most search engine hits are about his opinion, and his employer and the think tanks he's in do not count as independent sources. Given the person is an opinion leader (quote a lot of news articles cite his opinions), sooner or later an independent sources will write about himself. But the article, as it currently stands, fails the basic notability criteria for biographies. --Skyfiler (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation is what proves notability as a scholar, not sources about their personal life. Scholars , opinion leaders, writers, athletes, musicians, are notable for what they do professionally, and sources that show a person an expert show notability. The only people who are actually notable for their personal life are society figures who have done nothing in particular except being written about. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 11 December 2011 (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.