Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Min Jiayin


 * 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. —Admiral Norton (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Min Jiayin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

unsourced biography of a living person AndrewRT(Talk) 21:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although unreferenced isn't a valid reason to delete, the article doesn't necessarily establish her notability. It might be wise to take a look at WP:PROF and see if she meets the requirements.Inmysolitude (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:BLP: "Unsourced ... material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
 * you misquote, it reads : " Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."  (my italics) Just what is contentious here?  the policy is as it is,  not as you would like it to be. DGG (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting point you raise! That sentence could be read either way! Either (1) (unsourced) or (poorly sourced contentious) material OR (2) (unsourced) or (poorly sourced) contentious material. I really have no idea which the drafters intended! AndrewRT(Talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable position head of a major dept at the Chinese academy of social  sciences. Essentially the top of her profession. Her books are firmly sourced in : WorldCat To look in more detail takes knowing some chinese. DGG (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Her academic works have not been widely cited - see here and hence it looks like she is not notable enough to meet WP:PROF AndrewRT(Talk) 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one gets a better picture from gbooks -. Did some checking when prodded, it seems that she is a leading Chinese feminist scholar, most of what's in the article is sourceable from reviews and the like, with the exception of the cultural revolution stuff, which might be mentioned in her Chalice and Blade book.John Z (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep John Z has posted some strong book cites which establish notability in her field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (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.