Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WANG Jianxin


 * 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   delete. BJ Talk 19:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WANG Jianxin

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

Unverifiable, Unremarkable tripe masquerading as a notable academic. Pushing a political agenda par excellance, this transparent attempt at sino-polemics survived speedy deletion but still deserves a swift death. Baileyquarter (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear that this is "pushing a political agenda" or doing anything nefarious, but Wang cannot be considered notable in the English-speaking world. The entry confounds NWU (Northwestern University, US) with Northwest University, China. While NWU is a major university and the Director of an Institute there may warrant inclusion, Northwest U is a minor Chinese university unknown to most English-speaking Wikipedia readers. All of Wang's publications are in Chinese, and Google Scholar produces no hits. The entry should be deleted, but it would be useful if the submitter could propose an article that provides an overview of Chinese archaeological research institutions, carefully linking to existing articles. Liontooth (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with submitter. -Falcon8765 (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki_brah – iride  scent  10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I cleaned up the article, in the process (I hope) also reducing the Northwest/Northwestern confusion observed by Liontooth. Both his romanized and Chinese names get a lot of hits in Google books, but some of them are obviously not about archaeology, so I am not sure from that whether he has had the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Comment There is no such thing as being notable somewhere, but not in the english speaking world, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. . Notability can be shown by any language sources whatsoever. Nor need they be widely available, they just need to be publicly available. Precisely because the English Wikipedia has such a wide range of contributors from different language es and places, we have people here who can check sources anywhere and in any language. The standard of academic notability as a researcher is usually in fact international--though I would make exceptions: the leader of a field of study in a particular country may be notable for that. , --in most other matters, such as authors or whatever, if they're notable in any country at all, they;re suitable topics here. As for standards, there are citation indexes for Chinese academic works--does anyone have practical access? If I can see no sources, or be told of them, I cannot really say keep. DGG (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no signs of notability shown at article. Alexius08 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. After an extensive search using various tools, such as Worldcat, Google and various academic databases, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. By the way, I agree with Liontooth. I would also add that the English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, ideally sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. Otherwise we may fall into the trap of having to lower the standards of notability for lack of verifiable sources of notability for certain subjects. In my opinion, it is not good practice to justify a keep recommendation based on the assumption that sources of notability MAY or PROBABLY exist, for this or that subject, but are not currently available. As for their language, it certainly does not have to be English.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:48, 14 July 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.