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× ☎ 00:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xilei Zhao[edit]

[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)

Assistant prof with some early career awards, don't see how WP:NPROF is met. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think WP:GNG is met either. WP:TOOSOON at best. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:Too soon at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Florida, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start in citations, but in a very high-citation field, so not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1. Nothing else stands out as making a case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that the person is notable as she has done major contribution in safety and evacuation field using Machine Learning and GPS. She is one of the most influential woman scientist on this subject. Please do not underestimate this person profile or discriminate it. Safetystuff (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to this new editor. You will have to supply some reliable sources to support your view. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have added in the original page on the evacuation investigations led by Zhao: Kincade Fire and Marshall Fire. These investigation were funded by NIST and the Natural Hazards Center.

I believe that argument this person is not worthy of Wikipedia because she is early career is form of discrimination (Ageism). I do not know how this form of discrimination aligns with the Wikipedia mission and policies. Safetystuff (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Receiving grant funding for one's work is not in itself considered sufficient for WP:PROF or other measures of notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:PROF carefully. Qflib (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the interview and media articles with Zhao. She was interviewed lately by Fox news (just to give an example). This should answer on whether she is notable. Safetystuff (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding her dissertation, maybe 'embed' (wrap the text in an anchor tag and give it an href value set to) a URL where it can be read (loaded in-browser), downloaded, etc. e.g: "[1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324521690_Multi-Scale_Community_Resilience_Modeling_for_Natural_and_Manmade_Hazards" (signing up for a researchgate(DOT)net account is free for anyone looking to read the dissertation of interest along with other literature in which she has been noted amongst the respective set of citations). Research Gate currently attributes 88 pieces of literature (i'm assuming these are all scientific in nature as the constituent articles in the sub-set i've perused prior to writing this have been as such but did not and won't look through all 88) to have been worked on (experimentation-design-process through documentation/write-up) in-part or whole by Xilei Zhao.

I legitimately stumbled upon this article through a rabbit-hole starting with a page about the "Ryanodine receptor", saw it marked for deletion and decided to google the dissertation name listed in said article but not linked. This is to say I don't have any opinion regarding instantiating its persistence or otherwise but I think it is surely possible to, utilizing the aforementioned 88 indexed articles (there might be more; not within the scope of my cursory look into this), create a more evidentiary based (set of) 'argument(s)' (crafted into the article's content) that might better substantiate 'notability' criteria. Anxiolydiot (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to 1 edit editor. Do you have any connection with the subject that you should declare? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[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.