Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Si Xingjian


 * 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article and that is confirmed by the improvement to the article during this nomination period. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Si Xingjian

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a paleobotanist and stratigrapher, not properly referenced as having a serious claim to passing our inclusion criteria for scientists. There are things here that would be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly, but there's nothing "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to cite any WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources -- but the sole reference here is a primary source profile on the self-published website of an organization the subject was directly affiliated with, which is not a notability-building source. This was also created in draftspace and then moved by its creator without a proper WP:AFC review, but was moved back to draftspace as undersourced and then got reverted back into mainspace again by the creator with the argument that it was "never in AFC" in the first place -- except that draftspace is AFC by definition, so there's no mechanism for a page to somehow be in draftspace without being in AFC -- and the creator added absolutely no new sourcing to improve the article in the process. As I can't read Chinese, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Chinese can find significantly better sourcing to properly support Si Xingjian's notability -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough that a single primary source would be sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 16:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science,  and China. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unable to prove WP:GNG based upon supplied information. UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm convinced by the later arguments to switch my position. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - cannot see enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and I can't see how they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel 5969  TT me 17:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I found lots of Chinese sources, since he's actually a pretty important scientist in China. You can find a ton of papers about him here. There's also and  (both are reliable, the first is published by the an institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the other is published by Guangming Daily). I also found a short biography of him in this book. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep While the sources shown by are a little hard to parse for obvious reasons, it appears that the first link does contain pointers to a number of good-size obituaries, which should do the trick notability-wise. These would of course need to be vetted for source reliabilty and correctly attributed for use in the article, which I hope will be undertaken by a Chinese speaker. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep his Wikidata and authority control catalog entries alone convince me that he's notable enough to warrant an article. Both enwiki and zhwiki articles could do with expansion but deletion is unnecessary here. jengod (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.