Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huimin Zhao


 * 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 '''Snowball keep. Non-admin closure.  TN ‑  X   - Man  14:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)'''

Huimin Zhao
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet notable guidelines as set by wiki see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROF Billgade (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I remind the editor above of this following from wikiapedia notability requirements (taken verbatim from wiki):
 * Weak keep. First a procedural note: there seems to be some kind a technical bug with this listing, since this is the first AfD for this page, not the second. On the substance: I don't like uninformative stubs like this (and I hope somebody with some knowledge of the area can expand it at least a little bit), but there does seem to be a weakly passable WP:PROF case here (for criterion 1 of WP:PROF). GoogleScholar search gives two highly cited papers: 378 and 154 citations, with the overall h-index of about 20. There is also newscoverage of his research: two recent newsstories regarding new malaria treatment and 21 older googlenews hits. While he is quite young and the awards listed at the university webpage reflect that, some of them are quite tough (e.g. the NSF CAREER award and the American Chemical Society Young Investigator Award). Nsk92 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Was writing something similar, edit conflict. Won one of six UIUC "University Scholar" awards, internal, but $10,000/yr for 3 yrs means they're not handed out like candy, and award has more info on research. He has annoyingly many pages at UIUC,  is a more informative one; says "Centennial Chair" may indicate named chair / full prof rank.John Z (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (obviously) I put a delete on the page itself, but that was removed, thus I moved it to this process so I labeled it a second delete. The University Scholar is an internal award and thus does not meet notability requirements. In fact, six award a year for an internal award makes it a poor measure. The external junior awards (e.g., ACS) is meaningful. The CAREER awards are standard issue for the top 20 departments. It is not a particularly distinguishing characteristic - many, many faculty will have these. Thus any notability is largely based on one "junior" level award. This does not make a wik entry. A quick browse of Illinois engineering indicates 50 or so faculty that easily exceed the criteria proposed above. I would say wait and see if any major awards come along. To my eye this isn't a close call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billgade (talk • contribs) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Comments here indicate the nominator's reasoning is faulty, so there's no longer a good reason to delete the article. - Mgm|(talk) 23:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. [There is some support here in the google scholar sites, although they are low for a biological field.]
 * 2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. [In this case there is a single junior award from ACS; note that University Scholar does NOT meet this requirement]
 * 3) The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) [For this entry the subject has exactly zero of these]
 * 4) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. [Perhaps, but it certainly does not appear in the entry -- this is one area where it may be edited to include this]
 * 5) The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. [The article does not indicate this either]
 * 6) The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.[This is apparently not true]
 * 7) The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. [There is no evidence anywhere of this]
 * 8) The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. [Again no evidence]
 * 9) The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. [This person is in a science-related field]

So again: The notability is based on a young investigator award from ACS .... I would suggest that MGM review the notability guidelines carefully before posting again. It is my opinion that wikipedia should not become a dumping ground where every academic posts a web page, which is what this amounts to. It should be reserved for those who are truly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billgade (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question; how common is this name, as this search definitely suggests notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the details of his career need to be added, but the very fact that someone has achieved the rank of full professor at a major research university like Illinois would normally indicate sufficient stature as an authority of the field that it would be an almost certain keep. Its the scholars there who determine the notability, and all we need do is record it. We're not better judges that Univ. of Illinois (and UIUC is of similar reputation in this subject as Illinois-Urbana) . As for those details, 58 peer reviewed articles in Scopus, highest citation counts 279, 141, 112, 92. That's sufficient in any subject. DGG (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The mere fact that he's managed on 58 occasions to convince a group of people knowledgeable in his field to publish his work speaks sufficiently to establish notability in its truest sense - showing that one's work is of importance to people independent of the subject. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to be influential, notable in a quantitative way. I buy "meets WP:PROF". No other obvious concerns. Wily D  10:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. I guess the name is not too common.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets academic/professor notability criterion #1 (significant impact in their scholarly discipline). However, article must be revised - suggest adding citations to news articles on his work. Eric Yurken (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2008 (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.