Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lih (2nd nomination)

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. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lih

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

Delete. I worry that notability may be inflated here because this person is a Wikipedia editor -- the previous AfD resulted in delete but it looks like the discussion was aborted so I do not hold that against the article. JBsupreme (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough credentials to stop a general flood of articles. I don't see him abusing this notability either. Shadowjams (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some combination of WP:CREATIVE #1 and WP:PROF #7 - he's widely cited as an authority on, among other things, Wikipedia ;-). We even have an article on his book, The Wikipedia Revolution. Ray^Talk 07:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. GS based h-index is only 4, and he has only one work with triple digit citations (a 2003 paper in Nature about Wikipedia). Everything else he published has very low citation count so far. Most academics write books; this one happens to have written one about Wikipedia, which has a page here as a bad case of WP:SELF. None of these are reasons to keep the article(s). Finally, there's no coverage about him, all the above "keep" votes are some Wikipedia editors' subjective interpretation of this person's importance based on his work. Further, he is not listed as faculty at Columbia University as this article claims [1], and the OJR article is about Sreenath Sreenivasan, and only has passing mentions of Lih. It's possible he was visiting faculty at Columbia, as he is now visiting USC, but I see no clear reference for the former claim. Pcap ping 05:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was a professor, check my responses on the AN/I thread you posted. [2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was only adjunct professor, all the more reason to delete this article per WP:PROF. Pcap ping 07:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's now a visiting professor at USC, and while at Columbia he started a new interdisciplinary lab for interactive studies. Notability out the wazoo. Don't focus only on WP:PROF, as RayAYang pointed out WP:CREATIVE also applies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC) added: Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets notability requirements. Lih is the author of a popular history book reviewed in NYT and elsewhere. Currently he is the only serious published historian of Wikipedia, one of the largest websites in the world (in case you never heard of it ;) WP:SELF is not meant to stop discussing Wikipedia on Wikipedia. If he was a historian of.. Google.. no one would care, but WP:SELF causes hand-wringing and navel gazing when it's about Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is clearly established. That he's written about WP is no reason whatsoever not to afford him the same coverage we would afford to a similar figure, per Green Cardamom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 9 March 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.