Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhou Chaochen

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. (Non-admin closure) Till 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Chaochen

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

Is this professor sufficiently notable? The article doesn't show it. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Duration calculus is certainly notable (over 1600 hits in Google scholar) and Zhou is an author of four of the top five and seven of the top ten hits in Google scholar, with citation counts 850, 204, 189, 181, etc. To me that is clearly enough for WP:PROF#C1, and he has done enough other work in this area to distinguish himself from his most frequent co-author, M. R. Hansen. The 70th-birthday festschrift, though perhaps not enough by itself, is also evidence of notability. He's also a member in the Chinese Academy of Sciences; this is a high honor (different from his earlier employment in the academy which is just a job) and enough to pass WP:PROF#C3.
Keep. High cite counts + Festschrift + CAS membership = clear keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for one of the most notable Chinese computer scientists and a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the " the highest level of national honor for Chinese scientists". The article includes the relevant information. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. --Lambiam 17:13, 4 July 2012 (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.