Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meng Lee

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. The apparent lack of sources to make any content about this author verifiable mandates deletion, regrettably. The one "keep" opinion makes no argument and must be disregarded. Sandstein 08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meng Lee[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence this person meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's been mentioned in a bunch of books about C++, but as far as I can gather, that's about it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No assertion of importance. Having written a book is hardly important. If for some reason this fails speedy, delete anyway as there is no in-depth coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Meng Lee has some well-cited publications according to Google Scholar. I can see a technical report with > 600 citations (which was instrumental in the development of the C++ Standard Template Library), one paper with > 200 citations, and another one with > 100 citations. She developed the original C++ Standard Template Library with Alexander Stepanov, and coauthored the first technical report on the STL, as well as a book published in 2000 that has over 100 citations. It's difficult to judge researchers working in R&Ds of private corporations solely on the basis of their publications since they publish very little (and mostly in the form of internal technical reports). However, in this case, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. ~~However, she appears to have stopped her research after 1992 or so. She doesn't qualify WP:PROF with just three papers, but she isn't a completely unknown researcher either.~~ — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, but how is GNG satisfied. I don't see significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Btw, the citation counts in Google Scholar seems to be inflated. The link at ACM gives much lower numbers. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but man does this article need expansion and improvement. Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forget notability, we don't even have RS for verifiability. If I go by WP:WHYN, there are literally no independent sources about the subject. While I can see a contribution to the C++ template library, there is nothing else. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This profile shows only 3 papers (between 1990-1992), where the subject is never the first author. In addition, the citation counts are quite low (86, 36, 1) for papers published in 1990-1992. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. I want to keep articles on female computer scientists who have made a significant contribution, which is why I've held off contributing to this AfD for so long, but we have so little sourcing even for her signature work on the STL that I don't think we can support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (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.