Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhu Hua

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) –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Hua

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

No secondary source reference for a living person, seems like a poorly-written promotional piece. Probably fails WP:NACADEMICS since I don't see how she has made a significant contribution to her field of research, nor do I see any notable university position or membership aside from unsourced claims of "first Chinese-born woman linguist to be made a full professor in a British university." or "first doctoral student of the late Professor Qian Yuan （钱瑗）, the daughter of the well known Chinese scholars and writers Qian Zhongshu （钱锺书）and Yang Jiang （杨绛）" (notice Qian Yuan doesn't have a page). Plus, virtually an orphan (only 2 links, one of which is for another person of the same name and the second is just "List of Birkbeck, University of London people". and the only category is "Living people". Timmyshin (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly cited linguist, visiting professor at universities in China, Australia, Kazakhstan; easily meets WP:ACADEMIC; Z+Hua+linguistics h-index of 34 45 —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please define "easily". WP:ACADEMICS: "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1... Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose." "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." Timmyshin (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what criteria you're looking at - WP:NACADEMICS is the specific guideline for notability of academics. She meets the very first criteria (which is explained down the page). She has 7k-10k citations. If there is a guideline somewhere that says linguists are so over-cited that they must meet other criteria, please tell us where we can find that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her Google scholar profile needs better editing as many of the papers listed there appear to be by other people with similar names. In particular the h-index of 45 listed there appears to be completely bogus. But it shows enough highly cited publications that are actually in linguistics (citation counts 217, 187, 162, 73, ...) for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement but seems to be notable to me. AusLondonder (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2015 (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.