Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Min Zhou

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 No consensus Yomangani^talk 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Min Zhou

Tagged A7 but contested, so bringing to AfD. No particular evidence of passing the professor test. Guy 14:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete It's not difficult to pass the professor test, but I don't think this woman does. AdamBiswanger1 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If her contribution to the concept of social capital is sufficiently notable, it might be argued that info about that contribution should be merged into social capital per WP:PROF#Caveats. But her contribution is already mentioned there. I would leave it up to the editors of social capital whether the mention of her contribution should be expanded. Pan Dan 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The claims in the article suggest sufficient notability and there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt them. Deli nk 19:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't see any claims that meet WP:BIO and more importantly, their is a lack of verifiable information here.--Isotope23 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.No peer reviewed journal article cited in article.Edison 20:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Deli nk. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable independent sources to attest to her meeting any criterion of WP:PROF. Sandstein 07:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh, whoop, an award-winning [1] and peer-honored [2] woman academic scorned by Wikipedia as less notable than a working whore who has been given a "year's best blowjob" award by two dozen guys who watch porn all day and blog about it [and that's all that WP:PORN requires for notability]. Sick, pathetic, disgusting. VivianDarkbloom 12:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Just a suggestion, if you have such a problem with WP:PORN BIO (which isn't even policy or guideline... it's a nonbinding proposal which has no real bearing on anything), there is a whole discussion page you can register your disgust on.--Isotope23 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and please do nominate for deletion as many porn "stars" for whom there is no verifiable independent data as you can find. I'll be the one advocating Delete. Guy 09:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails the professor test and reads like vanity. Guy 09:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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.