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. Owen× ☎ 00:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiani Zeng

Jiani Zeng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There is a solid case to be made for notability given the sources, but basically every line of the article is wholly promotional in tone. Seems like a case of WP:DYNAMITE to me.

I'd also note that the creator has written a very promotional draft about the company founded by the subject of this article (EDIT: actually two such drafts), and at time of writing has ignored queries about COI posted to their talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review of the article, and I appreciate the constructive feedback provided. I would like to address your concerns regarding the promotional tone and the potential conflict of interest (COI) related to the drafts I submitted about the company founded by the subject.

Regarding the promotional tone, I acknowledge your observation. I want to emphasize that my intent in writing about Jiani Zeng is rooted in genuine admiration for her contributions as a student of AIoT and robotics. I aimed to present an unbiased perspective, drawing attention to her noteworthy achievements. However, I acknowledge the challenge of balancing admiration with the need for a neutral tone, and I am committed to making the necessary adjustments to address this concern.

In response to your mention of the drafts related to the company founded by Jiani Zeng, I want to clarify that my involvement in writing about her is driven by a sincere interest in highlighting her accomplishments. However, I do not have any direct association with Jiani Zeng or the company, and I understand the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest on Wikipedia.

I appreciate your patience and guidance in this matter. I am open to collaboration and welcome contributions from the Wikipedia community to enhance the articles in question. Wikipedia's open-source nature allows for collective improvement, and I am committed to ensuring the articles meet the standards of neutrality and notability.

If you have specific suggestions or areas of improvement that you believe would address the promotional tone, please feel free to share them. I am eager to collaborate and contribute to creating a fair and unbiased representation of Jiani Zeng's achievements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards Employmentadda (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuserblocked sockpuppet Courcelles (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: PROMO. I can only find PR items for this person and this reads with the flowery prose we see here for people trying to promote their brand. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've not looked into the notability sufficiently to be able to !vote, but the article is in a less bad state that was it previously and the main editor has since engaged in communication, so my feeling is more WP:DINC than WP:TNT at the moment. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even the nominator admits that "There is a solid case to be made for notability given the sources" and they are correct about this. Her invention made Time Magazine's list of the 100 best inventions of 2021. This alone would be enough to satisfy the GNG. Everyone's concern about the promotional tone is absolutely misplaced in a deletion discussion, where the *only* thing at issue is notability of the subject. Zeng clearly meets this standard, as even nom agrees. If the tone offends you edit the article. That's what we do.Central and Adams (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't fully understand how it operates, but her achievements are impressive, and I would love to hear from others about it. David renoo (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)— David renoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Checkuserblocked sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As best I can tell, the 3 relevant policies at play here are the WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACADEMIC. Based on what's in the article and doing a WP:BEFORE I believe GNG is failed. GNG requires significant coverage, and being mentioned by Time as a top inventor in 2021 does not satisfy that. It may hint at other sourcing being available (which I have not found), but it within of itself is insufficient. Looking at [1], [2], and [3], in my view, they are focusing on the subject's inventions but not the subject, which does not meet the standards of significant coverage of Jiani. [4] is an interview and so is primary. The WP:TECHCRUNCH sources are not SIGCOV. Reviewing NACADEMIC, one could attempt to argue a pass of criterion 1. I would say it doesn't. The "Specific criteria notes" for academics lean very heavily on academic institutions providing awards or coverage (for this same reason I don't believe criteria 2-8 apply either). Fast Company nor Time qualify as such. NACADEMIC 1b seems the most appropriate, but I do not believe there is "a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers" (emphasis mine). Looking at WP:ANYBIO, criterion 1 seems most appropriate, but I do not find the Time or Fast Company awards to meet "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". I would expect an award of such a level to be sufficiently notable where it's own article exists or could be created. Thus, I am leaning delete. I am happy to re-evaluate if someone provides sourcing I have missed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • • I still disagree with your conclusion but this is an excellent analysis.Central and Adams (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find her product, the Heatic sensor, impressive. She has been recognized by many reputable media outlets such as the World Economic Forum, FRAME, Red Dot, and Times. Additionally, she was mentioned in Forbes 30 under 30 list in 2022. Therefore, I am inclined towards keeping.

RamRamWiki1992 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser blocked sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Checkuser note: This AFD has suffered from extensive sockpuppetry. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Americanpie1996. I've blocked the socks and ECP'ed this page to stop the disruption. Courcelles (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although there may be a case for creation of an article about this person, this is not that article. If someone's really interested, they can start again in draft. Deb (talk) 09:07, 8 February 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.