Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ying Zhang (academic)

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. Consensus is that sourcing is not sufficient, especially for a BLP. It doesn't appear to be an issue of finding sources, so I don't think an additional relist would change this. CT55555, if you'd like to work on this in draft space, happy to provide. No need to go through REFUND. Star Mississippi 03:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Zhang (academic)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fairly accomplished individual but the references quite poor. Currently fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplished individual with a rich list of references. The deletion reason is not supported. 2A02:AA11:757F:1B80:50D:3218:CBFC:A2B0 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2A02:AA11:757F:1B80:50D:3218:CBFC:A2B0: They aren't really. It is that yourself in the article, i.e. Ying Zhang? scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep^Talk: There are more than 40 sources in the article that credit Professor Ying Zhang's academic and research work, including reputable sources such as Bloomberg and China Daily. Also, the academic information found on Google about the person in question is very extensive. Her contributions to the educational and academic world deserve to be disseminated in the encyclopaedic dissemination space par excellence such as Wikipedia. User:Juanma281984 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not sound very profound and professional. Savannahigh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplished individual with significant coverage and noteability. References are plentiful and notable. Savannahigh (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific references should be used to show notability rather than merely asserting they exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1: Meet our experts A small profile. Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
Ref 2: Verus Bonifatius A front page of a web site Independent:Yes, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
Ref 3: HBRC Mentor Plan 2020 Own site.Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
Ref 4: Meet our IAAB Members Takes you to a LinkedIn entry. Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
Ref 5: Zhang Ying: founder and head of the Erasmus China Business Center Confirms she is a professor at RSM Erasmus University. Another profile. Independent:Yes, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
Ref 6: Entrepreneurship development in China : a multilevel approach A paper Zhang wrote. cited by 5 articles. Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
Ref 7: 【Zhang Ying】A university professor's trip to Wudang A quite a long news story and interview. Independent:No, Significant:Yes, In-Depth:Yes
Ref 8: Meet our employees Not on the list. Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
Ref 9: Singularity Academy imparts individualised education with humanity at the core Independent:Yes, Significant:No, In-Depth:No. Passing mention
Ref 10: Team company directory. Independent:Yes, Significant:No, In-Depth:No

There is not one secondary source amongst the first 10 references. Reference 7 is the closest to independent, secondary source that is in-depth but it is interview. The author of the article has tried to make the lack of sources by add reams of other dubious references. The Google Scholar page on Zhang at [1] has only one paper above 100 citations, making her fail WP:NPROF. There is no secondary coverage. I think is possibly WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Here is why:

At first I thought she was a keep because she's the president of an academic institution, note WP:NACADEMIC but all I could find about it online was this https://www.scmp.com/country-reports/country-reports/topics/switzerland-business-report-2022/article/3171717/singularity which seems kinda promo and not enough.

But she has a few awards including one from The Case Centre and their page talks about the awards and has sufficient citations in it to give me the impression that the awards themselves are notable. So I think therefore she gets a pass due to WP:ANYBIO. Assuming people agree, that would suggest she is notable.

I'm less sure of this one than most of my !votes so this is certainly a "change my mind" scenario. CT55555 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent an hour examing the the first block of sources and finding nothing of worth support academic notability, yet you find two words in a reference that is a passing mention and some industry awards that are generally non-notable think it is worth keeping. What a laugh. If you bludgeon anybody on this Afd with your comments, I'm taking you straight up to ANI. scope_creep^Talk 04:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening other editors over edits you imagine they might make.Jacona (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as seems like WP:TOOSOON for me. President of Singularity Academy isn't quite enough to push the article over the line, and a lack of significant independant sources to pass WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Question for User:scope_creep. You said she has only one paper above 100 citations, but when I clicked the link above to google scholar, there was one with 146, another with 167, another with 219, one with 2,826, one with 163, 361, 336, 329, 281, 178....and I got tired of looking. Don't get me wrong, 100 citations may be fantastic, maybe not, depending on the situation. I just encourage everyone to follow the links and read the numbers themselves. Jacona (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Self-check - I see that there may well be a flaw in the scholar search above; it well may be a different scholar...further search needed. Jacona (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many academics that share this name. Striking question/comment above as they are not useful. Take extra care when looking at sources to ensure you're looking at the right Ying Zhang! Jacona (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree. @Jacona

also what really defines being notable in the mind of @Scope creeps? it seems we (editors all above) are talking on the different pages. The comments above by scope_creep questioning on the references are so subjective and artificial. don't make me wrong. i just dont understand what is the measures of his/her judgement on indepent, significant, and indepth.

I spent some time to review this person and the comments above by @Scope creep. i think the question is not about this person's being notability (based on her global awards/including top 40 prof. under 40, thinker30 next generation, UN awards, the case center awards, as well as HBR managment mentor,etc, she is notable), but should be about how we shall add more specific references to show the notability and make this page more completed.

Also, what I find “interesting” is there are lots of pages on wikipedia (personal biography, incl. academic) much less notable than this person , but without some threatening and unprofessional comments (on to other editors). What wikipedia aims to do is to disseminate great ideas/theories and people without bias. The whole discussion above makes me wonder the reason behind the intention of this deletion initiative. Looks like personal vendetta than a standardised approach (some of the threatening discu notes made above by @Scope creep) Savannahigh (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear I have no opinion on this article. Collectively no doubt, all the people named Ying Zhang would be notable were they one person, but this is about just one of them, and to make a determination about her notability one way or the other would take me more time than I'm willing to commit. Jacona (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Savannahigh you should be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. AFD is very much about the notability, and not how complete the article is as per WP:INTROTODELETE. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC) P.S. In terms of criteria for references, you may want to take a look at WP:GNG and WP:RELIABLE. Whether something is independant or not is rarely subjective. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2022 (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.