Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu Taishan

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 for failing WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Taishan

Is this professor sufficiently notable? Based on the publication list, I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no third-party sources.--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I am unsure about this one, although, with the current state of the article, I am leaning towards delete. Aside from the fact that the article is in a pretty bad shape in terms of providing references, a GoogleBooks search returns 21 hits [1] (although some may be false positives) and a GoogleScholar search returns 25 hits.[2] Granted, that is not much, but since GoogleScholar is very bad in tracking citations in humanities and since we are dealing with a scholar who primarily publishes in Chinese, these hits are an indication of something. I may be inclined to cut some slack here, if the creators of this article add some verifiable sources regarding the claims made in the article (e.g. regarding 92 papers and 6 monographs). Incidentally, the link to his personal homepage given in the article appears to be broken. Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently U of Penn has thought enough of them to have them translated--see [3] for an example. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, per nom. Atyndall93 | talk 13:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independent sources to support WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Article asserts that he is an authority on Central Asian history, but there nothing there demonstrating it besides the titles of his publications. B.Wind (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (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.