Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinyu Liu


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Jinyu Liu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet any of the qualifications of WP:NSCHOLAR. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article fulfills at least three of the criteria for notability and the article should not be deleted. Srsval (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NSCHOLAR criteria 4 is "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". The subject is "Distinguished Guest Professor at Shanghai Normal University", which is one of Shanghai's three Key Universities. The point of having criteria is to avoid having to arbitrate each article through AfD. When a person meets the criteria, as this subject clearly does, it is abusive to bring it to AfD. Will you please consider withdrawing this AfD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe that's a named chair, and I don't think guest professors are the same category, but I'll ping an editor who is far more experienced in evaluating hairline claims like this than I am, so,, hate to bug you, but what are your thoughts?  Onel 5969  TT me 21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the record, I don't think that WP:PROF applies here. The Distinguished Guest Professor at Shanghai Normal University designation was temporary (2014-2019), as the article itself indicates. For WP:PROF to apply, a named professorship appointment has to be permanent. However, this appointment still carries considerable prestige and does contribute towards WP:PROF. The GScholar citability data here here is also more impressive than it might appear from the first glance. In a field like classics we'd normally expect extremely low citations, and there to see a fairly recent (2009) recearch item with 170 citations already is fairly unusual. I have added three published reviews of Liu's book to the article. As the article indicates, she received a 5-year New Directions Fellowship (2011–2014) from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (and it's clear that this fellowship is treated as a big deal in the field from the way it is announced ). She also gave several named lectures, including the keynote address of the 2020 annual meeting of the Association of Ancient Historians (I added a ref to the article), and several others. There is a detailed profile interview with her in the editorial blog of the Society for Classical Studies. This page, SCS Blog, explaons that the blog "is edited and overseen by the SCS Communication Committee" of the Society for Classical Studies. So it qualifies as WP:RS under WP:NEWSBLOG. Overall, I believe there is more than sufficient coverage here to satisfy WP:PROF, especially considering the field. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the Mellon Foundation fellowship is extremely distinguished in academic fields in the humanities, so both this and the Distinguished Guest Professorship fulfil WP:NSCHOLAR 2. As says, it is abusive to flag pages for deletion - particularly those for women of colour - when they obviously meet at least one of the criteria. Named chair is not the only criterion for notability in academia  Eritha (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm insufficiently familiar with Chinese academic titles to have a useful opinion on the Chinese distinguished visitor position. For this sort of subject we tend to judge by books and their reviews (WP:AUTHOR) rather than journal papers and their citations (WP:PROF). Her book Collegia Centonariorum has five published reviews, and if those were split over two books I'd probably already have decided my opinion as a keep or weak keep. She does have another book, but it's in Chinese, so there's a language barrier to finding reviews. Does the Chinese academic literature do book reviews? Are there published reviews of this one? I don't know but it would be helpful to find out. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As Liu's faculty profile page and her interview at the Association of Ancient Historians indicate, her most significant work is translational, related to the Ovid project. As she also explains in that interview, the field of classics in China is just developing, with many classical Latin and Roman texts not translated yet, methods for doing that not yet developed, and even conventions for translating specific terms not yet adopted. As a research field, classics still mainly conducted in Western languages. I don't think that in this situation WP:AUTHOR is the correct default criterion to look to. We are not limited to using citations when evaluating WP:PROF where other significant indicators are available. That's certainly the case here, with a prestigious guest named professorship (even if it arguably doesn't satisfy WP:PROF by itself), a prestigious fellowship, a keynote address at an annual meeting of a major scholarly society, etc. In mathematics, if an academic gave a plenary address at an annual meeting of the American Mathematical Society, that would already be enough to indicate notability. Here we have considerably more. Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. For what it's worth, her CV mentions a review (in Chinese) of her second book as: 张治，《南方都市报阅读周刊》9/21/2014. GoogleTranslate translates this as: Zhang Zhi, "Southern Metropolis Daily Reading Weekly", 9/21/2014 Nsk92 (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually found that Zhang Zhi review online. And here is the GoogleTranslate version. The review is fairly substantive. I have added a ref to it to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I searched Google Scholar and found this article on CNKI. It's paywalled, but based on the abstract it seems to be some kind of report from a seminar about her textbook 罗马史研究入门 (Introduction to the Study of Roman History). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. If there is someone proficient in Chinese among the AfD participants, it'd be good to add this ref to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak-ish keep. The WP:NPROF C1 case is a little weak on its own -- citations are light, although I do take the keynote address fairly seriously.  (I'm not convinced by the C5 or C2 cases other editors have made.)  There's also an WP:NAUTHOR case, with one book having several reviews, and a second book that shows some signs of being taken seriously.  The combination of the two brings me over to keep, essentially per .   your comments read as if you believe  to be acting in bad faith.  Although I am !voting to keep, I certainly don't think this was an unreasonable nomination, and I suggest that you might wish to strike portions of your comments. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming anything about the motivation behind the original nomination, but it can be in perfectly good faith and still be part of the persistent and - yes - abusive pattern whereby pages for women academics are far more likely than those for men to be nominated for deletion, and those for women of colour even more likely, even where they clearly meet one or more WP:NSCHOLAR criteria, or where they are more borderline but could be initially flagged for notability rather than moving straight to a deletion nomination. This does not have to be due to conscious bias on the part of each/every/any individual nominator, but nonetheless, it's a pattern that exists and is a problem. Eritha (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Putting aside WP:PROF (though I think there are several strong arguments that she meets it), the five reviews of her book on Collegia are easily enough coverage to meet the GNG. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep more or less per the same reasoning as Russ Woodroofe: WP:AUTHOR, the (now six) reviews of one book, and the evidence presented above of possible reviews or at least serious attention for her other Chinese-language book. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems like we have a consensus to keep, so please could the deletion tags be removed and this discussion closed? Srsval (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the discussion generally runs for 7 days. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:28, 11 February 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.