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 keep‎. Although this article could use some work and more extensive sourcing, I see a consensus to Keep it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Wuhua (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)

Unsourced since 2008. The subject might possibly be notable as a founding member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but that assertion appears to be unverifiable. – bradv 16:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, China, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I would be extremely nervous of deleting this article unless someone with good knowledge of the Chinese academic system in the 20th C is prepared to say he isn't notable. By his dates, his career would have taken place almost entirely before internet. During much of it, contact between the Chinese academic world and the west was very thin. It is likely that most sources talking about him will be on paper, and in Chinese. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is a big thing. We really need expert input on this, not just those of us who cannot see the mid 20th C in China saying "I can't see anything!". Elemimele (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be extremely chary of keeping this article if it is neither properly sourced nor its assertions proven. We do not need "expert input" on the basic principles that a biographical article must satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, and in this case WP:V as well. Until and unless this one does, add me to the Delete column, with no prejudice against recreation should such sources be uncovered in the future. Ravenswing 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep I did an extremely quick google search on his name and came up with many articles substantiating his career. He was the head (校长) of Jiaotong University, one of the top universities in China. I just added a link describing what can be fairly described as a festschrift for his 65th anniversary of teaching. Per WP:NPROF this should be enough.

    "Neither properly sourced nor its assertions proven" isn't a valid rationale if sources exist. And "unverifiable" simply doesn't hold water. I'm not trying to excuse the fact this article lacks sourcing but per WP:BEFORE this should have been researched prior to bringing an AfD Oblivy (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – meets WP:NPROF criterion 6 as a former president of Shanghai Jiaotong University. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Its unclear to me whether his relationship to CAS was as a researcher for them (not automatically notable) or as an honorary member of the academy (notable), but it doesn't matter. President of SJTU is enough by itself, as Mx. Granger notes. Incidentally, the same link also gives him a pass of WP:NPOL as a representative in the 3rd National People's Congress. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree the wording of WP:NPOL supports this but it would seem a perverse result if nearly 3,000 NPC members (in each term) meet notability! One might think that the NPCSC (currently 175 members) would be a better cutoff. Just a comment as this individual unquestionably passes muster under NPROF. Oblivy (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Germany's Bundestag has 735 members representing a country of 80 million, and evidently they're all presumed notable per NPOL. China's NPC has about four times as many members for a population more than 15 times as large. It's not unreasonable on its face to presume notability for them too. In any case, as you say, it shouldn't affect the result here – maybe something to discuss at WT:China one of these days. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, it's right, and there should be a limiting factor in terms of press coverage (although even minor members can generate a lot of "warmly greeted by villagers and workers" stories). But 3,000 part-time delegates seems like a truck-size hole in the policy. No evidence it's a problem right now, certainly not for someone this notable. Oblivy (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – meets WP:PROF#C6. Contributor892z (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (clarifying my comment above, in light of Oblivy and Mx. Granger's work). Also with thanks to Oblivy for explaining our WP:NEXISTS policy, which is also common-sense: when an article currently lacks sourcing, but real-world sources are probably available, it is much more helpful to find them, than to delete. It is, admittedly, often quite hard to search out Chinese names, requiring a bit more expertise and effort than for Westerners. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 7 April 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.