Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhou Haizhong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Zhou Haizhong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nothing of interest appears in Google scholar nor does his name appear to be in MathSciNet at all. No indication of passing WP:PROF. I am separately nominating Zhou conjecture which, as his only contribution claimed as notable here, appears highly likely to be wrong. The similar article Hai-Zhong Zhou was successfully prodded a few weeks ago but rather than attempt a second prod I thought it would be best to go straight to AfD. David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I also could not find any references in MathSciNet; GoogleScholar gives 4 hits that do not appear to help here[1]. Of course, with a Chinese name, there is a possibility of a misspelling or of inconsistent transliteration of some sort, but in the absence of positive evidence it will have to be deleted. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability? Non. Delete? Oui. The preceding comment was added by User:Merenta. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete. There is no assertion of notability. Also this is a recreation of a previously deleted page. Wow, that's two speedy criteria! silly rabbit (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, there is an assertion of notability (known for his study of Mersenne primes), and G4 is only for pages previously deleted after a full discussion. So I don't think its eligible for speedy. — David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 23 May 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.