414:
here here is also more impressive than it might appear from the first glance. In a field like classics we'd normally expect extremely low citations, and there to see a fairly recent (2009) recearch item with 170 citations already is fairly unusual. I have added three published reviews of Liu's book
355:
criteria 4 is "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". The subject is "Distinguished Guest
Professor at Shanghai Normal University", which is one of Shanghai's three Key Universities. The point of
532:
indicate, her most significant work is translational, related to the Ovid project. As she also explains in that interview, the field of classics in China is just developing, with many classical Latin and Roman texts not translated yet, methods for doing that not yet developed, and even conventions
509:
has five published reviews, and if those were split over two books I'd probably already have decided my opinion as a keep or weak keep. She does have another book, but it's in
Chinese, so there's a language barrier to finding reviews. Does the Chinese academic literature do book reviews? Are there
710:
I'm not claiming anything about the motivation behind the original nomination, but it can be in perfectly good faith and still be part of the persistent and - yes - abusive pattern whereby pages for women academics are far more likely than those for men to be nominated for deletion, and those for
715:
criteria, or where they are more borderline but could be initially flagged for notability rather than moving straight to a deletion nomination. This does not have to be due to conscious bias on the part of each/every/any individual nominator, but nonetheless, it's a pattern that exists and is a
605:
356:
having criteria is to avoid having to arbitrate each article through AfD. When a person meets the criteria, as this subject clearly does, it is abusive to bring it to AfD. Will you please consider withdrawing this AfD. --
479:
says, it is abusive to flag pages for deletion - particularly those for women of colour - when they obviously meet at least one of the criteria. Named chair is not the only criterion for notability in academia
202:
373:, I don't believe that's a named chair, and I don't think guest professors are the same category, but I'll ping an editor who is far more experienced in evaluating hairline claims like this than I am, so,
663:
C1 case is a little weak on its own -- citations are light, although I do take the keynote address fairly seriously. (I'm not convinced by the C5 or C2 cases other editors have made.) There's also an
497:. I'm insufficiently familiar with Chinese academic titles to have a useful opinion on the Chinese distinguished visitor position. For this sort of subject we tend to judge by books and their reviews (
280:
545:
by itself), a prestigious fellowship, a keynote address at an annual meeting of a major scholarly society, etc. In mathematics, if an academic gave a plenary address at an annual meeting of the
566:
mentions a review (in
Chinese) of her second book as: 张治，《南方都市报阅读周刊》9/21/2014. GoogleTranslate translates this as: Zhang Zhi, "Southern Metropolis Daily Reading Weekly", 9/21/2014
668:
case, with one book having several reviews, and a second book that shows some signs of being taken seriously. The combination of the two brings me over to keep, essentially per
584:
163:
692:. Although I am !voting to keep, I certainly don't think this was an unreasonable nomination, and I suggest that you might wish to strike portions of your comments.
541:
where other significant indicators are available. That's certainly the case here, with a prestigious guest named professorship (even if it arguably doesn't satisfy
196:
794:
533:
for translating specific terms not yet adopted. As a research field, classics still mainly conducted in
Western languages. I don't think that in this situation
471:
the Mellon
Foundation fellowship is extremely distinguished in academic fields in the humanities, so both this and the Distinguished Guest Professorship fulfil
776:, the (now six) reviews of one book, and the evidence presented above of possible reviews or at least serious attention for her other Chinese-language book. —
322:
302:
406:
to apply, a named professorship appointment has to be permanent. However, this appointment still carries considerable prestige and does contribute towards
110:
402:
applies here. The
Distinguished Guest Professor at Shanghai Normal University designation was temporary (2014-2019), as the article itself indicates. For
95:
636:
Interesting, thanks. If there is someone proficient in
Chinese among the AfD participants, it'd be good to add this ref to the article.
627:
529:
423:
427:
90:
83:
17:
59:
612:. It's paywalled, but based on the abstract it seems to be some kind of report from a seminar about her textbook 罗马史研究入门 (
546:
439:
431:
136:
131:
262:
The subject of the article fulfills at least three of the criteria for notability and the article should not be deleted.
217:
140:
416:
184:
104:
100:
814:
It seems like we have a consensus to keep, so please could the deletion tags be removed and this discussion closed?
123:
867:
40:
844:
781:
697:
515:
415:
to the article. As the article indicates, she received a 5-year New
Directions Fellowship (2011–2014) from the
581:
411:
420:
178:
422:). She also gave several named lectures, including the keynote address of the 2020 annual meeting of the
863:
621:
419:(and it's clear that this fellowship is treated as a big deal in the field from the way it is announced
361:
36:
174:
848:
823:
806:
785:
764:
725:
701:
645:
631:
595:
575:
558:
519:
489:
463:
388:
365:
334:
314:
294:
271:
256:
65:
840:
777:
693:
537:
is the correct default criterion to look to. We are not limited to using citations when evaluating
511:
374:
330:
310:
210:
802:
712:
472:
447:
352:
238:
224:
759:
665:
242:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
862:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
819:
773:
721:
679:
617:
534:
498:
485:
476:
438:, explaons that the blog "is edited and overseen by the SCS Communication Committee" of the
370:
357:
267:
660:
641:
591:
571:
554:
459:
738:
564:
549:, that would already be enough to indicate notability. Here we have considerably more.
542:
538:
502:
451:
407:
403:
399:
326:
306:
190:
127:
798:
750:
689:
685:
378:
347:
284:
246:
234:
53:
754:
443:
510:
published reviews of this one? I don't know but it would be helpful to find out. —
157:
834:
815:
717:
675:
481:
263:
669:
637:
587:
567:
550:
455:
586:. The review is fairly substantive. I have added a ref to it to the article.
450:. Overall, I believe there is more than sufficient coverage here to satisfy
119:
71:
741:(though I think there are several strong arguments that she meets it), the
711:
women of colour even more likely, even where they clearly meet one or more
435:
426:(I added a ref to the article), and several others. There is a detailed
609:
858:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
281:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
742:
772:
more or less per the same reasoning as Russ
Woodroofe:
528:
As Liu's faculty profile page and her interview at the
153:
149:
145:
209:
501:) rather than journal papers and their citations (
237:, and does not meet any of the qualifications of
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
870:). No further edits should be made to this page.
793:Note: This discussion has been included in the
321:Note: This discussion has been included in the
301:Note: This discussion has been included in the
279:Note: This discussion has been included in the
377:, hate to bug you, but what are your thoughts?
580:I actually found that Zhang Zhi review online
223:
8:
795:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
839:the discussion generally runs for 7 days.
792:
614:Introduction to the Study of Roman History
323:list of China-related deletion discussions
320:
303:list of Women-related deletion discussions
300:
278:
583:. And here is the GoogleTranslate version
749:are easily enough coverage to meet the
684:your comments read as if you believe
398:. For the record, I don't think that
233:Not enough in-depth coverage to pass
7:
604:I searched Google Scholar and found
454:, especially considering the field.
24:
530:Association of Ancient Historians
424:Association of Ancient Historians
563:P.S. For what it's worth, her CV
96:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
849:21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
824:20:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
807:17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
547:American Mathematical Society
440:Society for Classical Studies
432:Society for Classical Studies
430:in the editorial blog of the
66:02:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
786:19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
765:15:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
726:14:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
702:12:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
646:14:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
632:12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
596:20:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
576:11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
559:11:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
520:08:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
490:08:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
464:00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
389:21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
366:21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
335:15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
315:15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
295:15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
272:21:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
257:15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
417:Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
887:
428:profile interview with her
860:Please do not modify it.
412:GScholar citability data
32:Please do not modify it.
507:Collegia Centonariorum
241:. Might be a case of
442:. So it qualifies as
84:Articles for deletion
809:
763:
337:
317:
297:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
64:
878:
838:
757:
737:. Putting aside
688:to be acting in
683:
385:
382:
351:
291:
288:
253:
250:
228:
227:
213:
161:
143:
81:
56:
34:
886:
885:
881:
880:
879:
877:
876:
875:
874:
868:deletion review
832:
745:of her book on
673:
383:
380:
345:
289:
286:
251:
248:
170:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
884:
882:
873:
872:
854:
853:
852:
851:
841:Russ Woodroofe
827:
826:
811:
810:
789:
788:
778:David Eppstein
767:
731:
730:
729:
728:
705:
704:
694:Russ Woodroofe
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
523:
522:
512:David Eppstein
492:
466:
434:. This page,
393:
392:
391:
375:David Eppstein
339:
338:
318:
298:
275:
274:
231:
230:
167:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
58:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
883:
871:
869:
865:
861:
856:
855:
850:
846:
842:
836:
831:
830:
829:
828:
825:
821:
817:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
791:
790:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
768:
766:
761:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
733:
732:
727:
723:
719:
714:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
681:
677:
671:
667:
662:
658:
657:Weak-ish keep
655:
654:
647:
643:
639:
635:
634:
633:
629:
626:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
531:
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
508:
504:
500:
496:
493:
491:
487:
483:
478:
474:
470:
467:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
418:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
390:
387:
386:
376:
372:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
354:
349:
344:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
299:
296:
293:
292:
282:
277:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
255:
254:
244:
240:
236:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
859:
857:
769:
746:
743:five reviews
734:
656:
624:
613:
606:this article
506:
505:). Her book
494:
468:
395:
379:
342:
285:
247:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
77:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
713:WP:NSCHOLAR
680:Tagishsimon
477:Tagishsimon
473:WP:NSCHOLAR
448:WP:NEWSBLOG
371:Tagishsimon
358:Tagishsimon
353:WP:NSCHOLAR
239:WP:NSCHOLAR
197:free images
666:WP:NAUTHOR
543:WP:PROF#C4
539:WP:PROF#C1
503:WP:PROF#C1
452:WP:PROF#C1
408:WP:PROF#C1
404:WP:PROF#C4
400:WP:PROF#C4
243:WP:TOOSOON
864:talk page
774:WP:AUTHOR
770:Weak keep
716:problem.
690:bad faith
535:WP:AUTHOR
499:WP:AUTHOR
327:Shellwood
307:Shellwood
120:Jinyu Liu
72:Jinyu Liu
37:talk page
866:or in a
799:TJMSmith
747:Collegia
686:Onel5969
661:WP:NPROF
628:contribs
436:SCS Blog
348:Onel5969
164:View log
105:glossary
54:Eddie891
39:or in a
739:WP:PROF
659:. The
618:Granger
495:Comment
203:WP refs
191:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
835:Srsval
816:Srsval
718:Eritha
676:Eritha
482:Eritha
475:2. As
446:under
410:. The
264:Srsval
235:WP:GNG
175:Google
141:delete
670:Nsk92
638:Nsk92
588:Nsk92
568:Nsk92
551:Nsk92
456:Nsk92
444:WP:RS
218:JSTOR
179:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
845:talk
820:talk
803:talk
782:talk
760:talk
753:. –
735:Keep
722:talk
698:talk
678:and
642:talk
622:talk
616:). —
610:CNKI
592:talk
572:talk
555:talk
516:talk
486:talk
469:Keep
460:talk
396:Keep
384:5969
381:Onel
362:talk
343:Keep
331:talk
311:talk
290:5969
287:Onel
268:talk
252:5969
249:Onel
211:FENS
185:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
60:Work
50:keep
755:Joe
751:GNG
672:.
608:on
225:TWL
162:– (
847:)
822:)
805:)
797:.
784:)
724:)
700:)
644:)
630:)
594:)
574:)
557:)
518:)
488:)
462:)
364:)
333:)
325:.
313:)
305:.
283:.
270:)
245:.
205:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
52:.
843:(
837::
833:@
818:(
801:(
780:(
762:)
758:(
720:(
696:(
682::
674:@
640:(
625:·
620:(
590:(
570:(
553:(
514:(
484:(
458:(
360:(
350::
346:@
329:(
309:(
266:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.