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. Consensus to Keep has been achieved, given that, accoring to the voters, the subject meets the correspondent notability guideline. Notwithstanding, it is recommended to remove all unencyclopedic content that is currently in the article. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Da-Wen Sun (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)

This academic is probably notable based on the article's content - that's not the problem. The problem is that this is an exclusively (self?-)promotional article, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten and fact-checked in order to read like a neutral encyclopedia article. The article is limited to obsequiously listing and fawning over the subject's accomplishments in a manner that one would expect in a CV. There's no hint in the article that he might ever have done something that was not absolutely brilliant and widely acclaimed. Furthermore, the content was written by accounts that are either single-purpose accounts or accounts whose editing pattern suggests that they likely have a close affiliation with the subject. That makes the content profoundly suspect, even to the extent it may superficially appear salvageable, as we would need an editor without a possible conflict of interest to double-check each sentence to verify that it is true and neutrally worded – in effect, rewriting the article. For these reasons, this is not salvageable by normal (incremental) editing. The article should be deleted until it is competently and completely rewritten by an editor without a conflict of interest.  Sandstein  22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "This academic is probably notable based on the article's content - that's not the problem." Au contraire-that is the problem. This BLP should be kept as at least two categories of WP:Prof appear to be satisfied. However, if the BLP is kept, the nominator would be entitled to cut it down by 80% to remove all the vainglorious puffery that he so correctly identifies. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep I think this does not quite pass the bar for speedy g11, which is basically the argument advanced by the nominator. I don't think we should use AfD as a process for deleting articles that can be repaired, even if repair means stubbing them down a good bit. Ray^Talk 14:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The academy memberships give him a clear multiple pass of WP:PROF#C3. I think the article could use less emphasis on search results and citation counts, but that's not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2013 (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.