Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xuemin Lin

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) (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 04:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xuemin Lin

[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)

As the subject of this page, I respectfully request its removal. Given that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit content without my approval, I have concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Therefore, I prefer that my personal information not be displayed or managed in this way, and I hope this request can be granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumuja (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Academia Europea implies notability. The Gscholar profile for this individual shows over 24,000 citations, which I think is also notable. Easy pass at PROF or academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming per WP:AGF that this is a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, that is only valid for a borderline case. This is not a borderline case. This stub consists of only four claims, none of which is personal information and all of which are easily verified, all four of which would individually be enough for notability: named or distinguished professorships at two different major universities, and fellow of two major academic societies for which this level of membership is a significant honor. Double pass of WP:PROF #C3 and #C5, as well as the pass of #C1 suggested by his Google Scholar profile. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1: I concur with David Eppstein. The premise of WP:BIODELETE requires a lack of consensus to keep the article, meaning it must fail notability guidelines before deletion is considered. This nomination statement did not address how that would be the case at all, while the comments from Oaktree b and David Eppstein have already demonstrated otherwise. It is even more puzzling that the teaching positions, memberships, and research progress are all publicly accessible, regardless of whether this Wikipedia article exists, these details would still be available online. I do not think this is a reasonable deletion request. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe the "concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations" stem from a sentence that used to be in the article, but was removed. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Out of an abundance of caution I have suppressed the revisions containing that sentence, which consisted of generic fear-mongering about Chinese scholars in Australia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the user rights to view the content of the deleted version. Based on David's summary, it seems to be related to defamation of the subject rather than the disclosure of their public personal details. (Correct me if I misunderstood.) In this case, the subject should file their case at WP:RFO to request the suppression of the defamation claims, rather than having the entire article deleted. (and since David has already taken this step, perhaps we can consider the nominator's concerns alleviated and the deletion rationale resolved.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Agree with above points: if notability is somewhat marginal, then we should honor the wishes of the subject, but I don't see anything marginal here. Being Fellow of the IEEE is particularly a bright line pass of NPROF. "Weak" only because I do give some weight to the wishes of the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (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.