Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fang Liu (statistician)


 * 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. Opinions are divided. While the "delete" side would honor Ms. Liu's deletion request reported by the nominator, the "keep" side argues that Ms. Liu is notable and that no reason for deletion has been advanced, either in terms of Wikipedia policy or by Ms. Liu herself.

Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, to the extent relevant here, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Given that there is no rough consensus here, I must decide whether to delete the article in application of this policy or to let it be kept by default in the absence of a consensus to delete.

First, I must decide whether BLPREQUESTDELETE applies at all. Because that policy is intended to be applied by the closer, I am making this determination myself rather than following any consensus about this issue in this AfD. I find that Ms. Liu is indeed "relatively unknown", in part because she has not been the subject of media coverage as far as I can tell. I next must decide whether Ms. Liu is a "public figure" in the sense of BLPREQUESTDELETE. That phrase is a term of art in U.S. constitutional law, and means, according to SCOTUS case law, "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs", or "those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies'" (see Public figure). Because Wikipedia is mostly written by Americans, and that particular U.S. case law has had a worldwide influence, I am interpreting BLPREQUESTDELETE's phrase "public figure" in accordance with it. Seen in this light, I am of the view that Ms. Liu is not a public figure because none of the aforementioned criteria apply to her. This means that the requirements for the application of BLPREQUESTDELETE are in principle met.

But I still need to decide whether or not I should delete the article, because BLPREQUESTDELETE provides that the article "may" be deleted, not that it must be. Although BLPREQUESTDELETE does not provide directions about which criteria should inform this decision, it implicitly requires that there must at least be some rational basis for deletion beyond the mere desire of the subject. If it were otherwise, BLPREQUESTDELETE would provide that articles must be deleted at the request of their non-public figure subjects, but it does not.

But in this case, no real reason for deletion has been advanced. In particular, Ms. Liu's notability is not contested. There is speculation that Ms. Liu may want the article deleted to prevent harassment, but this is not borne out by the article's history, which is short and unproblematic. Because I read BLPREQUESTDELETE to mean that I must not delete an article in the absence of a policy-based or at least rational reason for deletion, I decline to apply BLPREQUESTDELETE and the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  10:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Fang Liu (statistician)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject, Fang Liu, has been in email contact with me and wishes the article to be removed or, if it cannot be removed, to be reduced down to a stub with the bare minimum of information about her. Despite repeated requests on my part, she has not provided any more information on why she prefers not to have an article about her. I disagree with this request: I think she is clearly notable, through WP:PROF, by multiple criteria: #C1, highly cited publications, and #C3, fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor, the American Statistical Association; note that unlike GNG, PROF does not require independent sourcing (although in a sense the citations to her publications provide large numbers of independent sources). More strongly, I would like it to be the case (as it is for several societies in related areas but not yet for the ASA) that we have articles on all female ASA fellows; instead, deletion of this article would create a long-lasting or permanent hole in our coverage, and I oppose it. Therefore my opinion on this AfD is to keep the article. Nevertheless, it is within Liu's right to request a discussion of this deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, so I am initiating this discussion. Because this is a BLPREQUESTDELETE discussion, if it ends in no consensus the result may be deletion rather than a no-consensus keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per nom (which is a phrase I don't think I've ever used in a deletion discussion). She certainly meets WP:NPROF by being an ASA fellow, and in the general sense I agree that expanding our coverage to include more articles about women in STEM is beneficial to the project. The only information I see that is outside of the scope of her work is in the one or two sentences about her childhood and her parents' influence on her choice of undergraduate major, and as that is sourced to an interview with her, I feel that the "bare minimum" aspect of her request is reasonably met. -- Kinu t/c 03:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 *  Not sure Delete at subject's request. She works in a strategically sensitive area and gives no reason for wanting deletion. Otherwise I would keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep.  there's no personal information, and the area doesn't seem sensitive in the military-secret sense or the anti-government sense. (there have been one or two scientists in those areas which I've been willing to handle differently).If I'm judging wrong, she could  send a confidential email to oversight, or to me directly as an oversighter,  DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because the world needs statisticians and she passes the threshold for notability, and no pressing reason has been given for deletion. There's nothing in the article that she herself hasn't already put in the public domain. If she's worried about specifics, like the attitude of her parents to her career, then although it's referenced, I would be sympathetic to its removal (it's not essential material). But mostly a comment that we should not be deleting articles because their subjects work in a sensitive area. WP only contains information that can be referenced, and is therefore, by definition, already in the public domain; if people really want to remain under the radar, they've got to keep out of the public eye long before things reach the Wikipedia stage. And in any case, since when has WP embraced censorship? Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as others have said, clearly meets WP:NPROF, info seems to be publically available elsewhere anywhere, and no real reason given to delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, she's notable, but she's not a high-profile public figure. It's perfectly reasonable for private individuals whose jobs happen to make them notable to request that they not have a user-editable page about their life featured on a prominent website. I'd also like it if women who are fellows of scientific societies all had articles, but that goal doesn't outrank the desire of any specific member of that group not to participate. As for her request not giving a reason, it might defeat the purpose of wanting privacy to disclose the reasons for wanting privacy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If the reasons are private, she should be directed to confidentially contact an oversighter - no need to make the reasons public. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Opabinia, who delineates the issue clearly. Women should not, against their will and without good reason, be forced to have a BLP on Wikipedia, a public forum where they are open to attacks by trolls and bullies . Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC).
 * Comment Though I don't have examples at my fingertips, this sort of situation has arisen before: a woman is notable by some guideline like WP:PROF, an article is created, and she requests deletion even though, to a bystander, the article seems to contain nothing that wasn't already in her faculty profile website. It's worrisome. I'd prefer not to have holes in the encyclopedia's coverage, but I also don't want the encyclopedia to make innocent people's lives worse. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Earlier examples that seem to fit this pattern, presented without further comment: Articles for deletion/Wendy Lou, Articles for deletion/Jennifer Windsor, Articles for deletion/Sally Marks, Articles for deletion/Renée Bryce, Articles for deletion/Ruby Hamad, Articles for deletion/Rebecca Campbell (educator), Articles for deletion/Victoria Talwar, Articles for deletion/Susan Ioannou, Articles for deletion/Shirli Kopelman, Articles for deletion/Angela Gronenborn. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There's nothing personally identifying about her in the article, other than very basic biographical information that could be gleaned by anyone who looked up her name. I do not see reasonable grounds for deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I would certainly !vote keep in the absence of a request from the subject, as the citation record looks like a (possibly weak) pass of WP:NPROF C1, and the ASA fellowship I believe to be enough for WP:NPROF C3.  However, at this  stage of the subject's career I think that notability is sufficiently marginal to honor a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request.  I make no judgement about potential later career notability.  I share XOR&#39;easter's concern about deletion requests from female academics.  (Possibly it can be explained by a combination of the enthusiasm of WP:WIR and the social pressures placed on women?) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which does not appear to require a subject to explain in detail to our satisfaction the reasons for their request, nor an amount of sensitivity of their work or a certain amount of personal information in the article. The sources in the article suggest the subject is low-profile and only recently became an ASA fellow, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE appears to favor honoring this request. I also think WP:BLP supports deletion, i.e. the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment and The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material - I am not convinced by this discussion that the burden to keep this article has been met at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. She is not so well-known that we must have an article on her and we should accede to her request. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Without more detail of her concerns, she is notable due to her contributions and expertise, and WP desperately needs better coverage of notable women. Sidenote: it would be great to have more detail on what public health research the award referred to. The article is well-written, statements are sourced, and nothing is immediately apparent as sensitive. Of course, different things are sensitive to different people, so I would say that if she gives more detail about her concerns, to cut that material from the article with appropriate reminders to editors not to add it back in (unless the concern is something like threat to her wellbeing, in which case I'd very strongly argue to do whatever she asks). --Xurizuri (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2021 (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.