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. As mentioned, the nominator's rationaile is explicitly mentioned in the notability guideline as establishing notability, so this is put down as a SK. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhisheng Niu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about an electrical engineer whose only claim to fame appears to be becoming a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. According to the IEEE website's Fellows Directory that makes him one of 9,909 such, which hardly seems notable. Emeraude (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Fellow of IEEE, the very thing the nomination complains about, is explicitly given in WP:PROF#C3 as an example of an honor that would make someone notable by that criterion. If you don't like the criterion, lobby to change it, but with the criterion as it is, there is no valid nomination. WP:SK #3 calls for speedy keep when "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question"; here we have something different, a nomination so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the notability guideline, but I think the reasoning is the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. To suggest I have "not even read the article in question" is total nonsense and, to be frank, rather insulting. It's a single sentence, which I edited/tidied before nominating, so your speedy argument is wrong. I accept your point about IEEE though. Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully. I did not suggest you had not read the article; I suggested that you had not read the notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Prototypical pass of WP:PROF#C3. (Also 6000+ GS citations and an h-index of 37.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nominator admits the subject is a fellow of IEEE, which clearly passes PROF. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fellow of IEEE, which is the electrical engineer association. NPrOF. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:16, 18 November 2017 (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.