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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Zhonghe

[edit]

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

Does "describing" an extinct bird make one sufficiently notable? As an outsider to the field, my feeling is "no." The external links in the article are dead links. Unless notability further established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Wow! This prof is on the "American" National Academy of Sciences. See here:[1]. NAS is the #1 formal membership a scientist can have anywhere in the world. He is the Director of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His article "An exceptionally preserved Lower Cretaceous ecosystem" shows 330 citations and it is in Nature, not just a top scientific journal but the top journal. There is any amount of secondary source coverage of him. I see you are tagging Chinese-sounding names willy-nilly. Please stop; you are embarrassing Wikipedia with these tags. Churn and change (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are tons of independent and reliable sources that I found relatively easily. Appears well-published, which fits WP:SCHOLAR #1. Additionally (and as an independent factor), he's the Director of his institute (see previous source) which also fulfils #5 on the secondary Academics guideline. With both reliable sources demonstrated and notability demonstrated, this is easily a keep. Lord Roem (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:SCHOLAR... The article needs to better express the subject's notability, but there are over 1000 citations on the first 5 Google Scholar titles alone. Celtechm (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the US National Academy membership and WP:PROF#C3. I've added Churn's source to the article, as well as a source for his discovery. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as above. Nom is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2012 (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.