Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chi Hsuin Urlic Chu


 * 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. I would be happy to move it into userspace or the incubator if someone wants to work on it outside of mainspace. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Chi Hsuin Urlic Chu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no notability. The url given in the reference bibliography point to an index of little worth to tell otherwise (use the search term "Chu, Chi Hsuin Ulric" to get hits). The topic is not mentioned in the links of the external links section. There is no sources found through google or googlebooks. Cold Season (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Search on GS gives zilch. Perhaps I am searching wrongly. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Weak Delete Um. I can confirm he exists, and after contorting (searching under author:"CU Chu" on Gscholar) I can get a single uncited hit - his career was early enough that Gscholar may not have the citations properly indexed. I think this is a case of failing WP:BIO in the classic sense - there simply isn't enough coverage in RS independent of the subject to write a decent article about him. This is a shame, because people with the length and prominence of the career presented in the article today would have enough sourcing and citations and the like to pass WP:PROF, but due to the older era the subject hails from, we don't have enough. If the original author wishes, userfication would be a good idea - eventually, the indexers will work through the digitization of older source materials. Ray  Talk 15:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unfortunately, Ray is correct. There are no WP:RS which is what is needed to support the notability of the subject. This is too bad as the subejct is interesting, just needs to be cited. Maybe there is something in print that we do not have access to that can be cited?? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Incubate. As per others, probably a notable person but unfortunately we currently don't have the references to prove this. 1292simon (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.