Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang kangzhi


 * 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. General consensus seems to hold that this individual appears sufficiently notable. Sourcing problems do persist; but the general conclusion seems to be that they are solvable by regular editing and that deletion is not the best course of action at this time. ~ mazca  talk 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Zhang kangzhi

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

Biography with no indication of notability to explain how this individual meets the guidelines at WP:PROF. No third-party sources cited. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 19:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * weak Keep if sourced. Apparently distinguished positions, and major administrative influence on his profession,  but I think all the likely publication will be in chinese, which I cannot read. DGG (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need to bother reading his publications, as those don't indicate notability. If there are other publications that cite his publications and say how important they are, that's a different story. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm unable to follow DGG's reasoning here. Notability certainly has NOT been demonstrated by way of WP:NOTE or WP:PROF and so this person is non-notable and the article should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would invite Drawn Some to learn a bit of basic logic. "Notability certainly has NOT been demonstrated" does not imply "this person is non-notable and the article should be deleted": it means that that the subject may or may not be notable, but it has not yet been demonstrated which. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a freshman, thank you all for your comments and advices. If there are anything else I can do to end the delection, show me please. Iyawon (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's pretty obvious that everyone so far involved in this discussion is thrashing around in the dark, so we need to get people involved who can evaluate Chinese language sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I can evaluate Chinese language sources, if someone shows them to me. I am not going out of my way looking for them, though, because I have other things to do too, and I'm not going to break my back over this when removing this entry would not really hurt the encyclopedia (if it's 'wrongly' deleted, it could always be re-written as a proper article by someone else later). The problem is that the article creator has not even given a starting point on where to find such sources; all that's really available is Zhang's own CV (sort of), not any external articles or sources. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone has shown some sources, in the section under the title "notes". Have you read those and found that they don't support the claims referenced to them? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to give out more VC information and some external links, but, as he is a living person, there are no other people's work which can show you how important he is. And because his works are all in chinese, there are no English comments which can show you how important his works are.
 * Personally, I don't know who he is, and I don't really care either. But since you pointed that out, I would just want to remind you that while he might be important, but this is English (EN) Wikipedia and that's why we need English Refs. Maybe you should start by starting an article in Chinese (CN) Wiki first. Just a suggestion. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily need English refs. If anyone can find Chinese articles "which can show how important his works are", they would be usable. But without such references this discussion is moot. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good Point. Rjanag is right, we don't need EN Refs, but I don't even seen a Chinese (CN) Wikipedia article for him and it really puts a damper on any action of saving this article. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, it's easy to creat a Wiki China article for anybody, but it may be meaningless, because people in China do not need to turn to Wiki China to find who somebody is, and maybe people out China do not either. Second, it's also easy to find Chinese references to make sure that he is notable, please give me some time to find more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyawon (talk • contribs) 07:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment All his book publications are from his own university press, and so far no references have been provided to show why he's notable in his field. Per WP:BURDEN, until such references turn up I am defaulting to delete. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) oops, forgot that I was the one who posted this AfD...so I shouldn't really be !voting. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note If kept, the article needs to be moved to Zhang Kangzhi (with capitals). I didn't move it originally because I figured it would just mean another redirect to delete after this article is deleted. r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 11:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's my fault, I didn't notice the name bug.Iyawon (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are claims in the paragraph starting, "He is considered one of the most originative scholars in China", with verifiable (although not online) sources, that make for clear notability. No reason has been presented here for why this should not be considered to amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as required for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's borderline but many of the problems seem to lie in the quality of the Wikipedia article not in the notability of the subject.  See also the Baidu Baike article on him at 张康之 and a Google translation of it |en&u=http://baike.baidu.com/view/1538922.htm here.  And, yes, the article should be at Zhang Kangzhi. —   AjaxSmack   00:51, 27 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.