Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenia Meng

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 delete. Salvio ^giuliano 15:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenia Meng

Jenia Meng (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)

I am not sure how to categorize this individual's profession but given the weight of this article upon her education, I'm going to say that she doesn't meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Comics and animation, and Science. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Google the name, it is already given a knowledge panel. From Google: "Knowledge panels are automatically generated, and information that appears in a knowledge panel comes from various sources across the web. In some cases, we may work with data partners who provide authoritative data on specific topics like movies or music, and combine that data with information from other open web sources." https://support.google.com/knowledgepanel/answer/9163198?hl=en . The page has been vandalized because of

multidisciplinary nature of the research Effortshitconsistentinvest (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Google Knowledge Panel is not what we would consider a

notability, especially for someone claiming credentials in the academic world. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Heavily promotional, could be G11 speedy. Article creator seems non-knowledgeable re Wikipedia standards for notability: having a Google knowledge panel means absoutely nothing for us, and none of the sources in the article meet the standards of depth of coverage, reliability, and independence from the subject required for
  WP:NPOV, we do not have that coverage, and searching did not turn up anything better. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• page has been vandalized by Eppstein https://www.quora.com/Is-David-Eppstein-useful-for-Wikipedia it says censorship of theology, the article is not Eppstein's field Effortshitconsistentinvest (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Paranormal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see how would meet
  WP:GNG, which I failed to. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The text is awkward, but more importantly, it is also promotional. The sources are unreliable and further searching turned up none better. The idea that a Google knowledge panel should imply notability is trivially refuted by the very description of Google knowledge panels quoted above.
  talk) 13:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As others have said, seems promotional, very thin mentions on the web, does not seem to meet PROF criteria 1 through 8 despite having doctorate. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing what here meets
  WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Agree with everyone else, nothing to indicate the subject is notable, and I can't find any sources of my own to back it up. OliveYouBean (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein and other contributers here. -Roxy the dog 08:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein and others here - not notable. Deus et lex (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject is not notable. I couldn't find relevant sources on google. -
  talk) 12:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever: Interestingly, her works in the references are all ignored. And of course you cannot find, you are dealing with a multilingual author who wrote in different languages and pen names. You need study some foreign languages before commenting on the subjects. Google knows better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias 211.30.131.151 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP: NPOV notability; clearly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinifex&Sand (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete. Google Knowledge Panel is insufficient and also always highly volatile. Admittedly, I was the original draftifier, and though the creator moved it back to mainspace I find the edits leading to that inadequate. Silikonz💬 19:23, 2 February 2023 (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.