Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xuelong 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 keep. (non-admin closure) jp×g 18:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Xuelong Li

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An unsourced BLP; I could not find any significant mention of this guy on Scholar or in news searches. He does not seem to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. If someone can find anything, I will withdraw the nomination, but I don't think there is anything to find. jp×g 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. These old stubs by Topcipher/SwisterTwister/whatever the other socks were named have been a perennial problem, but WP:DINC. IEEE Fellow is an automatic pass of WP:PROF (it's even explicitly stated to be a pass in the guidelines), his Google Scholar profile looks like an easy pass of #C1, and his National Distinguished Chair title is probably also a pass of #C5. The same nwpu-optimal link lists many other major society fellowships that also pass #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The nominator should retract since the GS profile found by David clearly shows a notability with an h-index of 110. But the article also clearly needs improvement, it is no real article at all. --hroest 14:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Verifiably a WP:NACADEMIC#3 pass as an IEEE Fellow and a AAAS Fellow, as well as reasonable cases for NACADEMIC#1 and NACADEMIC#5 as mentioned by DE. — MarkH21talk 18:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, looks like this nom was a stinker. Withdrawing. I offer my thanks to the people who found sources! jp×g 18:37, 21 April 2021 (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.