Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xue-Mei 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Xue-Mei Li

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:Academic. While she may be notable in the future, I am unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested by WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

She has already written two books ("The geometry of Filtering" and "On the Geometry of Diffusion Operators and Stochastic Flows"), and is one of the few experts in the UK in stochastic differential geometry, how could you possibly consider her not notable? Mathsfreak (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Mathsfreak, she may well be notable to you, and indeed to other people in stochastic differential geometry, but notability in Wikipedia means something rather different from being notable in real life, and your article on her fails to demonstrate this. Having a PhD and researching in mathematics even at an institution as reputable as the University of Warwick is simply not enough to make her Wikipedia-notable. If other mathematicians have reviewed her books, which you have not mentioned in the article, at length or regularly cited them or any of her other research papers, that may well mean that she is Wikipedia-notable - but as well as mentioning them in the article, you would need to back the statement up with sources that are recognised on Wikipedia as being reliable. We need enthusiastic editors like you on Wikipedia - but Wikipedia has developed rules and guidelines as to what is or is not a suitable Wikipedia article, and if you want your work to survive on Wikipedia, you do need to work within them (even if they do sometimes seem irrational). PWilkinson (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep Delete in view of MathSciNet h-index below. Too early. I find a GS h index of 13 which may give a pass in a low cited field. Input from mathematicians would be helpful. I am concerned that this nominator is not carrying out WP:Before before nominating. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete I think this is a case of not quite there yet, per the rank of associate professor. I can't altogether account for the GS h-index (suspect it may be a case of multiple researchers with the same name), but the MathSciNet h-index is 2.  Ray  Talk 17:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The citation record is borderline, but not really quite enough to convince me, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. In the UK, she and David Elworthy are practically the only people involved in Stochastic Differential Geometry. Furthermore she is married to a fairly famous Mathematician, Mathsfreak (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete per above.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the physical sciences you would need an h-index in the 10+ range to be considered for an initial academic position at research universities. At h=13 she would still be pretty junior. Notability requires a lot more, otherwise most university lecturers in the sciences in the UK would get a wikipedia bio article. Perchloric (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) (edited Perchloric (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Delete. It doesn't look like there's enough for WP:PROF and not inherited. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (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.