Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yi Ding (psychologist)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Ding (psychologist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable academic. Does not meet WP:PROF-- all of her papers have fewer than 15 papers referring to them [1]--I have learned that absence of link to a list of them in the article often means that they are not significant. Writing book chapters and translating textbooks is not the sort of scientific activity that shows one an expert in one's field.

There does not sem to be anything else. She does the normal sort of service and teaching, she's on the editorial board of 2 journals, there are no major outside activities that would lead to notability .

Nor does she meet the GNG there references are either within her own university, of just show her members of various groups. I have no idea why an experienced editor moved this from draft space. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Page Yi Ding (psychologist) was cut-and-pasted to mainspace at 18:12, 19 March 2017‎ by User:Masterknighted . At 7 September 2017‎ Anthony Appleyard obeyed a request to history-merge Draft:Yi Ding to Yi Ding (psychologist). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies--I was really puzzled by it, & should have checked more carefully I've changed the link. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:Prof. Of the 7 peer-reviewed journals mentioned in the article, only Educational Psychology Review has an impact factor over 2. According to [2] her highest citation number is only 38. Timmyshin (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.