Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giok Djan Khoe

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giok Djan Khoe (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)

As an AFC reviewer I accepted this as a draft on the basis that it was likely that an emeritus professor passes

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Indonesia, and Netherlands. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A clear pass of
  WP:Prof with a GS h-index of 50. Is this nomination serious? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC).[reply
  ]

I will stop editing. The editors asked to add categories, citations and links and I was trying to fix just that. I received a lot of encouragements to continue editing. I had difficulties at the beginning with the editing format but found out how to do that properly. I hope that the article will not be deleted because of my actions. Khoe0005 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong Keep. A highly inappropriate nomination; just because there appears to be COI is not grounds for an AfD. His Google Scholar h-factor of 50 qualifies for
  WP:NPROF#C1; Fellow of IEEE, Optics and other awards fly through #C2-#C3. This is definitely not an advert, it is a non-peacock academic page. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as above per
  WP:PROF #C1 and #C3. The autobiographical edits should indeed stop but they are not a good reason for deletion (we could instead merely block the editor from editing this article if necessary) and in this case did not appear to have problematic effect — listing awards that we should list anyway is encyclopedic rather than promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR: Erroneous nomination 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that the nomination to delete is withdrawn, but it still shows on the article page ? Khoe0005 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We are merely waiting for someone not already involved to notice that it has been withdrawn and close the nomination. I would do it myself if only I hadn't already !voted. It should happen soon enough, anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2025 (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.