Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy zhang

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lucy zhang

Non notable. Probably a vanity article. Angela . 17:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable assistant professor at Tulane (many of the 700 Google hits are about her), but no indication of further notability. Article was written by anon 129.81.145.107, user's only edit. Weak delete unless evidence of greater notability is shown. I've got a friend doing research in fluid microdynamics and developing theories and methods, and he might be an assistant professor, but I won't write his bio until he gets major attention for accomplishments. Barno 19:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete keep when she gets tenure. Klonimus 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miss Zhang has provided countless advances in her field of study. It's sad to see how ignorant people are to delete articles without looking at her accomplishments. SoSoDef 20:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If those "countless advances" were mentioned in the article, there wouldn't be a reason to delete. However, as it stands, the article says nothing about why this person in encyclopedic. Angela . 07:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this smells like vanity, agree with Angela. Thue | talk 17:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
weak delete her biography shows what appear to be peer reviewed publications, but not many, and a relatively short research career (starting approx 2000). No publications in major general journals such as Nature and no specific major achievements are listed. Whilst this doesn't prove that she isn't worthy of an article, a much clearer explanation of her achievements in computational physics would be needed to persuade me. An article on IFEM and it's practical uses in the field would be a good start. A new but not commonly accepted algorithm would not be encyclopedic since its value would be unverifiable. Mozzerati 19:23, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.