Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Yu

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. Noting there is nothing to prevent restoring the article to user or draft space at some point in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Yu[edit]

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

This academic fails WP:NACADEMICS Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per A7: There's just no assertion of notability in this article. However, having reviewed the presented sources, I suspect that Yu may be notable. The big problem here is the article has so little content and context (though possibly enough to get it past A3)... despite it being a BLP. The fact that half of the two-sentence article is an opinion on curriculum design, rather than any discussion of the subject's research and publications (which are what would make him notable as an academic) may in fact work to violate WP:BLP via WP:DUE insofar as it gives a false impression of why the subject is significant. While AfD isn't for cleanup, we don't need to reach an AfD decision here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One book with 210 cites in GS. Not enough. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep As creator of this article I would love to spend more time working on it -- unfortunately I am spending my time fighting multiple nominations for deletion by the same two nominators, instead of doing constructive work. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. Insufficient evidence of notability. (BLP considerations above might lead toward the assertion that Userfy is incorrect, but I would be willing to give that the benefit of the doubt.) There's no "there" there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of notability at the current time. Can easily be restored to userspace when the user has time to work on it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2014 (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.