Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Jifeng


 * 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. ⇒ T A  P  16:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He Jifeng

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Is this professor sufficiently notable? The article doesn't show it, although I must say that I've been out of the field for too long to have a better informed opinion. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the related article (a work that he coauthored with Tony Hoare, whom I do believe is clearly notable):
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep both. He Jifeng is one of the foremost leading computer scientists in China. I find an h-index of 37 using the Google code citations gadget (using Author: He Jifeng + Other: Jifeng He), which is fairly high for a computing scientist working in the area of formal methods. The impact of Unifying Theories of Programming has been high; among other things, it has spawned a series of international conferences (under the same name). --Lambiam 21:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Jifeng's best-cited work is with a more famous author, Hoare, but even if we remove Hoare's contributions from the citation record we see citation counts of 128, 94, 88, etc., good enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. And the Chinese Academy of Science membership is almost certainly good enough for #3. As for the book, the existence of multiple academic publications whose title follows this one (many of which look like nontrivial reliable sources) seems like strong evidence to me that it's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very clear keep as above. Nominator might care to consider the wisdom of editing in fields that he has been "out of for far too long". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC).
 * I was pruning the Category:People from Shanghai category, which was (and still is somewhat) of a mess. I ran across this article that really didn't show notability.  That's why I AfD'ed it.  I thought that that was the wise thing to do, and I still think it is.  If sufficient opinions emerge (as finally so) that it is notable, hopefully someone edits it properly to show the notability.  At least, leave a proper record.  --Nlu (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * agree with Nlu that listing was the bold thing to do and not inappropriate. Thought the article is a clear keep.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lambiam.  Th e S te ve   07:15, 3 July 2012 (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.