Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Zeng

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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator; no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 05:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zeng

[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)

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. This one-sentence stub links to 2 deadlink references and claims that the subject is an IEEE fellow, but I have not been able to confirm even that. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IEEE Fellow is explicitly called out by WP:PROF as a pass of criterion #C3 and is trivially verified by accessing the online IEEE Fellows Directory [1]. This is one of many badly-written stubs on notable people left by long-blocked sockpuppeteer Topcipher/SwisterTwister; they need cleanup, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I was unable to find that link; thank you. Qflib (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also he passes WP:PROF#C5 as a (former) named professor at the University of Arizona, #C3 again for AAAS Fellowship, and #C1 for heavily cited publications on Google Scholar (none of which were to be found by the stub in its nominated state, which didn't even make it obvious which Daniel Zeng it might have been referring to). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, David. I appreciate your help. I don’t think I can withdraw the nomination but I definitely would do so. Qflib (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can withdraw your nomination. I did the same thing the day before and have done so in the past. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be glad to if I can just figure out how. Qflib (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In penance, I have added more information to the page from the links that David kindly discovered. Qflib (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to withdraw: just leave a comment here saying that you want to, and some other editor will do the rest. You can also close the nomination yourself but that's not necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, Computing, China, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A classic example where doing the AfD forced a rewrite of a very weak stub (that had been left weak for seven years) so now it clearly demonstrates notability.
Withdraw nomination I would appreciate it if an editor would close this nomination, which I clearly made in error. Apologies and thanks to all. Qflib (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2024 (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.