Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yehua Dennis Wei

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yehua Dennis Wei

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

Can't find sources for this person Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A google scholar search finds one publication with over 100 cites and an h-index of 15; his book is in over 500 libraries and has multiple published reviews [1] [2] [3]; he's also been quoted as an expert in the NY Times [4] and won some awards from his professional society. But this is only a week keep because there's not much in the way of sources that are actually about him (other than his cv) to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations and holdings are good enough to pass WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete User:David Eppstein's finding shows that this person exists and did some research. But I still can't make myself think this person is notable.—Chris!_c/t 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citations are sufficient to show him as an expert in his field. The Scopus cites are compatible with GScholar, with 47 articles. And neither G Scholar nor Scopus will include most of the citations from Chinese sources. Quite apart from that, he has clearly written a notable book, as shown by the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (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.