Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joyce C. H. 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 no consensus. Discounting the blocked Sakaimover. Sandstein 19:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce C. H. Liu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional (auto)biography. If the subject is notable, this would still not be a valid article - WP:TNT would be required to even approximate to NPOV. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's really just a mass listing of awards and titles the subject has anyway, which serves no encyclopedic value on its own. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but may show that a person meets a SNG ie. WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:AUTHOR, note: i am not saying that this is the case here. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think she satisfies WP:PROF on the basis of the level of citation she has received [1] in a low citation field and the various chairs, directorships and chief editorships she has held, the awards she has received. There are more than four hundred library holdings of her books: [2]. The article doesn't look particularly promotional, most of it looks like entirely neutral statement of simple fact, it is not like its full of superlatives. James500 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Seems like Liu would meet WP:PROF#8 as the chief editor of Router: A Journal of Cultural Studies ISSN 1816-0514 if it is indeed a notable journal. The journal may still be notable even if it doesn't have an article. It is mentioned in the [3] on page 185 as being founded in 2005. Possibly due to the language barrier, I had trouble finding sources. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on balance, I'd accept notability on the basis of the books., DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Probaly meets WP:PROF as a published author in peer-reviewed journals and cited by a moderate number of other authors. Being the director of the International Center for Cultural Studies of the University System of Taiwan probably also makes her notable but the language barrier makes it difficult to find sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For lack of a substantive claim to notability. The editor status and administrative duties are a start, but they don't seem to have led anywhere. I would recommend keeping if either of these two statements were supported by discussion in reliable independent sources: Liu's works concentrate on the question of aesthetics, ethics, and politics, ranging from Marx, Freud and Lacan, to contemporary critical theories as well as Chinese political thoughts. She has been a critic of East-Asian modernity and internal coloniality, particularly through re-reading the Chinese intellectual history of the twentieth century and the contemporary political-economy in inter-Asian societies. But they don't seem to be. (That means no conference/book/journal bio-blurbs.) --Bejnar (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the nom thinks they can write something better, they should do so from the current version. WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a reason to delete. WP:IMPERFECT is the actual editing policy and this draft doesn't seem so bad anyway. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: What about the lack of discussion of her work in independent secondary sources? --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson Sakaimover (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per DGG and others. @Bejnar: When you say there are no book etc bio-blurbs do you mean things like this? It's a contributor blurb in a book not edited by herself: undoubtedly self-written but presumably assessed as correct by the editors. PamD 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that bio-blurbs don't count, they often occur in footnotes in academic papers, in conference materials, and in journal prefaces for editors, as well as on the backs or flyleaves of books. Your example on page 299, of Google book id=IrlV9llG94QC, is exactly what I mean. Where is there actual discussion of her work? --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The reason we have WP:PROF is because it is usually not helpful to look for substantial discussion of someone's work,: Unless they are famous, there is unlikely to be anything very substantial, but if they have published books that get reviewed or papers that get cited there is always something, even they are by any reasonable standard non-notable.

(2)You are however correct that the bio in a conference publication does not contribute to notability -- and is not usually helpful at all. Most academics have a more or less standard brief bio they use for these purposes, sometimes but not always tailoring it to the occasion. They are not reviewed by the editors, unless it strikes them as absurd, but they've usually seen it before on all the person's other contributions. The most that gets done to them is truncation if there is not enough space. I don't consider them anywhere near as reliable as a formal CV or official personal web page. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 October 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.