Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liping Liu

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. Skomorokh 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liping Liu

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Article lists 13 publications, for which Google scholar finds a total of 35 citations, many of which are by the professor himself citing his own earlier work. Prod denied by anon IP whos whois traces back to the professor's own university department. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ assuming he is in Who's Who, which he seems to be. A Who's Who profile is, like an ODNB article, considered to be evidence of wider notability. Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Talk:Marquis Who's Who, a "Who's Who" inclusion is not so noteworthy as one might assume. Marquis' selection criteria are not clear, so it can't be judged that a biographee is necessarily notable under Wikipedia standards. Since no other reliable sources can be found on Professor Liu, I don't think that single fact suffices. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, point - wasn't aware of that. Delete then, since I can't find anything else - a pity since I just spent five mins tweaking his article. Ho hum. Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites do not appear to be sufficient. Who's Who is not so notable. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. Using Scopus Web ofScience, I can find only one cited paper, "A theory of coarse utility" (1995) Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 11 (1), pp. 17-49., cited 6 times--5 out of the by other papers of him. That's compatible with the GS results. This is not a career that can be considered important in the subject. And we do not accept who;s who articles as notability-- certainly not for WW in America and its subsidiaries. Their standards are unknown, and their articles are based almost entirely on material submitted by the subject. They presumably have some form of screening, but it is not reliable enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (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.