Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hui-Hai 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hui-Hai Liu

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

In February of 2016, I added comments about Notability and COI to Talk:Hui-Hai_Liu:

There are no secondary sources that indicate that the person is notable. The article fulfills none of the requirements of WP:NACADEMICS.

The article was created from a editor who was not logged in. Most of the edits are from editors who were not logged in. The ones I checked seem to be from the San Francisco area. To improve this article, it would be helpful if there were more edits from editors who used named accounts.

Thus, I propose that this article be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC) kvery odd with the formatting on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_January_6, could someone help? It seems like everything is indented under this article for deletion. I tried a couple of things, but don't want to mess up further. Cxbrx (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but only because of the fellow, as the citations are only a high of the 1 "192", simply not enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GScholar shows an h-index of 30, which is more than sufficient for PROF C1. 200 academic citations to a single work is nothing to sneer at, but h-index, imperfect as it is, is a better gauge of the reach of an academic's work. --joe decker ^talk 17:12, 13 January 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.