Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keqin Li


 * 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 Speedy keep, per clearly satisfying WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Keqin Li

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Substub with COI edits Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 19:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

*Comment So while this is a clear pass of WP:PROF, shouldn't this also be an example of WP:TNT, if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title (in this case notable subject) might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as being a fellow of the IEEE is the actual example in the guidelines for how someone passes WP:PROF. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as the article history shows a good faith effort to provide non-useless content. The nominator deleted that content and then brought this to AfD. Additionally, WP:TNT is an essay, and my own read is that it provides advice on issues of complexity and incoherence, or unambiguous totally promotional content, neither of which appear to me to be at issue here. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly checked the history and I agree here. The nominator actually removed the (in my opinion) solid enough content and then nominated it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and trout nominator. It's hardly the sign of a good faith nomination to delete almost all of the content from the article and then claim that it should be deleted all the way because it's so short (the more-complete pre-nominated version is here). Even in its shortened state, the article clearly demonstrates a pass of WP:PROF. And the claim that the anonymous editor who expanded it from its sub-stub state should be reverted and their edits used as an excuse to delete the article is, without evidence, a personal attack. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Nevermind, just saw the former content was in a better state because the things were removed around (including a reference of the official site of the subject, which while it is a primary source, it is still vital). I have no objections then, clearly passes WP:PROF. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Passes WP:PROF without even breaking a sweat. It could stand a good clean-up, but really, what couldn't? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2018 (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.