Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Yu
- Henry Yu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This academic fails WP:NACADEMICS Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy per A7: There's just no assertion of notability in this article. However, having reviewed the presented sources, I suspect that Yu may be notable. The big problem here is the article has so little content and context (though possibly enough to get it past A3)... despite it being a BLP. The fact that half of the two-sentence article is an opinion on curriculum design, rather than any discussion of the subject's research and publications (which are what would make him notable as an academic) may in fact work to violate WP:BLP via WP:DUE insofar as it gives a false impression of why the subject is significant. While AfD isn't for cleanup, we don't need to reach an AfD decision here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. One book with 210 cites in GS. Not enough. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
- Keep As creator of this article I would love to spend more time working on it -- unfortunately I am spending my time fighting multiple nominations for deletion by the same two nominators, instead of doing constructive work. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- 'Delete or Userfy. (BLP considerations above might lead toward the assertion that Userfy is incorrect, but I would be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. There's no "there" there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)