Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zengzhi 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) 08:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Zengzhi Li

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article concerns an academic with no evidence of passing WP:PROF; additionally, regardless of whether WP:PROF is met, the article in its present state also fails WP:V. Some versions of this article listed Li as a "distinguished professor" at XJTU, and if he holds that title he may be sufficiently notable, but searching the XJTU web site for his Romanized name found nothing usable and I can't read the chinese results. The article is sourced only to an article co-authored by Li that claims an XTJU affiliation and lists him only as "professor and doctoral advisor in Institute of Computer Architecture and Networks". I can't find any evidence that this paper or his other works have had enough impact to pass WP:PROF #1.

The article was, effectively, prodded and unprodded four times: (now banned) prodded it a year ago, and  proposed it for deletion in october with the reason "Non-notable article", but both times  deprodded it with the presumption that "distinguished professor" means what we expect it to mean and therefore that he passes WP:PROF. prodded it again a few days ago, and DGG unprodded it again based on a mistaken Google scholar search but quickly reversed himself. Finally, declined the prod on procedural grounds based on the fact that one may only prod an article once. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete On the thoroughly non-policy grounds of being an article too short and dull to have any value. Whatever the virtues of a pack of wikilawyers dancing on the head of the WP:Notability pin, there's just no content in this article worth having. He exists, his chair is at a particular university. The phone book can tell us that much. It doesn't even tell us what his particular field is, his presumed doctoral thesis, or which piece of work made him so "distinguished". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep. Post expansion, I'd be happy to keep this. Thanks to those who put the effort in. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for getting so irritable about deletions! Opbeith (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I contested the deletion on procedural grounds, but I would have nominated for AfD myself if I had more time right now (I'm trying to clear away all the expired prods, I guess all the other admins who normally do that actually have lives on a Friday night; good for them). The article clearly doesn't meet our criteria. --  At am a  頭 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak Delete I've looked at it further. I at first thought there were many articles with a great many citations, which confirmed notability, & deprodded on that basis, as that would show his notability and, I assumed, distinguished status. I since checked further, and almost all of them are by people of another name.  The name is a common one, and so I have had to distinguish by subject, which is not really accurate,   And GS does not include publications in Chinese.  Though I consider it correct that full professors at major research universities are almost always notable, and this is a major research university, I have just now found some further information about him, and he is an associate professor, not a full professor. The information is  at the end of the pdf of his article, and reads in full "Yinliang Zhao was born in 1954. He is an associate professor in the Institute of Computer Architecture and Networks, Xi’an Jiaotong University. His research interests include optimization algorithm and parallel algorithm " It is sometimes helpful--for better or worse-- to actually read the reference .    DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't you looking at the wrong co-author? We're discussing Li here, not Zhao. See deletion rationale for a quotation of Li's bio from the end of the pdf. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * oops, you are certainly right. The actual quote is "He is a professor and doctoral advisor in Institute of Computer Architecture and Networks. His research interests include Computer Architecture and Networks. '' so it remains possible he really is notable, but we'd need to get more information than that. If we do, the article can be rewritten using that information   DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Saw the multiple prods, but saw they all had the same unprodder. Don't really think this procedurally needs to be here. One can (or should be able to) reverse one's own mistaken unprod; older versions of WP:PROD may have said this more clearly. The guideline should be clarified or changed.John Z (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you those were all honest errors. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:PROD would be the place to bring up changes to the proposed deletion policy, however I know that there has been a discussion about this subject since last year and there is yet no consensus as to how to change it, or if it should be changed. I've always considered it okay for a prod tag to be re-added by the person who removed it if done in a short time, just as DGG did this most recent time at this article, and I've done so myself when I realized that my reason for objecting to a prod was faulty. --  At am a  頭 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * this is an unusual and confused case, and there is no reason to try to adjust policy to deal with it. Most deproddings are straightforward enough, and if anyone objects to them AfD is the obvious course. If in doubt, there is no harm in getting a general community decision, even if not actually necessary. People make mistakes (I seem to have made several different ones here myself)   DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a stub. Unless Wikipedia editors are determined to reinforce Wikipedia's existing ethnocentricity stubs should not be removed without evidence of adequate linguistic and other competence on which to base a legitimate judgment. Opbeith (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What? We need evidence that this subject either meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO.  The article does neither.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay some digging indicates that he is considered a 'famous prof' This though is considered a primary source from his university and not indicative of any reasons as to why they are famous. The page also doesnt link to his profile either in englishh. I am certain this page will exist in chinese (which i cannot read unfortunaetly, and would be good if another reader could provide or find the translation for this, anyone with those skills here?). The article as of right now Fails WP:PROF, unless it can be established that he passes this, which right now is difficult to do. So at this point Im leaning towards deletion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ill add that the link i provided was selected by searching a header famous proffessors but this could just be a translation error and just be the faculty depeartment listing of all profs. Nether the less I still think a profile page could be found which would indicate wether or not he satisfies WP:Prof.

I've done a very limited bit of expansion based on content and search engine follow up. The paper was published in International Journal of Information Technology "a scholarly open access, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, quarterly and fully refereed journal focusing on theories, methods and applications in information technology", ISSN: 2070-3961. The journal has a distinguished editorial board, http://www.icis.ntu.edu.sg/scs-ijit/default.html (It doesn't mention their professorships and associate professorships there, but I've looked up a number, so anyone else can do so first before questioning their capacity). As DGG points out the key article was cited as a reference in the article, hence a statement like "The phone book can tell us that much. It doesn't even tell us what his particular field is ...". suggests a fundamental lack of interest and willingness to examine the article and its sources. As for the article being too short, my impression is that that is precisely why an article is identified as a stub and why editors are invited to help expand it. Until someone who is capable of adequately checking out sources of information - either a natural language expert systems specialist or someone who is able to use Chinese character set search engines - is able to follow up, this should be left as a stub. What is the point of deleting stubs, which are an encouragement to the expansion of human knowledge rather than its frustration? Opbeith (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is the correct journal; "International Journal of Information Technology" its imapct factor isnt that high (my opinion only). Im not convinced that the paper is a huge contribution to science and that it even saitisfies WP:PROF. To me at least this would mean high citations, and high impact. Which this doesnt seem to meet. Again to me it goes back down to whats in the chinese sources and is he notable there. To me this means either we find the sources necessary to establish his notability or the article warrents deletion under WP:Prof. The discussion for this is now, not in some arbitary time from now. This is just my opinion of the source provided, Im sure people will have a different opinion than me on this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be an argument for deleting all stubs, ie doing away with the concept, and probably for not allowing any unfinished articles either.Opbeith (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing deletion of all stubs. I am discussing my view on deletion of this article that hasnt been able to meet notability at this time in WP:PROF. My view would be the same if it were a fully developed sized article and still failed notability for academics. But that is not to say we cant try find the refs right now that show Li meets the criteria. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  —Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, even with expansion I'm not seeing encyclopedic notability for this individual person.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment very difficult to decide with the sources. A PhD thesis does not help much. This person could be very notable but I could not say wihtout more sources. In doubt, I say keep. MiRroar (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete apart from any notability issues there seems to be a general lack of independent reliable sources on which a neutral, verifiable article could be based. 80.47.228.124 (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2010 (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.