Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaoshan Liu

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoshan Liu

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

Questionable notability , and a promotional bio written in the classic PR style. A great deal of fluff has already been removed, but it keeps coming back. (with respect to WP:PROF, though there are many papers, none of them has more than 40 citations,and this is a field where very high citation counts are frequent. With respect to the GNG,not a single one of the English language references are reliable independentsources for notability. I cannot judge the Chinese ones. and in any case, NOT ADVOCACY is more fundamental to WP than than the notability guidelines DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy articles can always be re-written if the subject is notable. Also listing facts might not always be the same as advocacy. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 10:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2018 (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.