Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
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. The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article given the uncertainty that the editor who PROD'd the article actually spoke on behalf of the article subject. Should Mei-Ching Fok, or her representatives, wish for the article to be deleted, they can use the regular channels and this decision can be revisited. Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mei-Ching Fok[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mei-Ching Fok (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)

The article's subject is relatively unknown and a non-public figure. She has requested deletion of the article. We should accomodate the request per the relevant policy. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The American Geophysical Union has, as of 2018, sixty-two thousand members from 137 countries. (They might be more by now.) Does each and every of these sixty-two thousand members deserve a Wikipedia biography simply on account of being a member of AGU? Should we not, in fact, require a bit more than that? Criterion #3 of WP:NPROF is not satisfied. -The Gnome (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From our article on the AGU: "AGU nominates members for fellowship in the society. According to the AGU website "To be elected a Fellow of AGU is a special tribute for those who have made exceptional scientific contributions to Earth and space sciences as valued by their peers and vetted by section and focus group committees." A maximum of 0.1% of the membership can be elected each year". Curbon7 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mei Ching Hannah Fok appears to have over 20,000 citations in GScholar, I'd say she passes GNG with flying colors. And as stated above, she passes PROF. Personal preference aside, I think we should always keep articles that are notable, unless there is some legal requirement or strong reason not to, but that's not my call to make. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion, as above, about keeping articles on notable persons (the articles themselves are not notable) is of course fully respected, provided they are indeed notable per wikipedia's criteria. However, we cannot ignore the directions provided in the aforementioned policy. Verbatim: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Emphasis added.
As to GScholar hits, let me comment with what I find to be a past essay's still valid admonition: "When performing a plain web search, it is possible that a lot of hits will turn up. ... Google Scholar [and other engines] provide results that are more likely to be reliable sources, but only if these hits are able to be verified and are reliable sources by reading the articles or books." Again, emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with 20k citations is not "relatively unknown". Jahaza (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read again the part, Jahaza, abt those hits not conferring notabilitty by themselves without specific, additional prerequisites. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are not the same as search result hits though. I don't see where the 20k comes from in any case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome, WP:NPROF clause 1 is what's being invoked here I believe. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference to others, looks like that quote is from WP:GNUM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the cited relevant policy of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE if there is confirmation that the subject requests deletion, e.g. by contacting Wikipedia. My search has found various primary sources related to her career, and nothing to indicate she is well-known or a public figure. Beccaynr (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC) -comment updated to unbold !vote and add text Beccaynr (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would perhaps help if we had more information about why the subject wishes her article to be removed. Depending on the problem, we might have other ways to fix it (e.g., page protection) which people who aren't deep into Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with. I recall !voting for deletion in roughly similar cases in the past, and so I don't want to rule it out as an option, but I'm reluctant to jump to conclusions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, where did she request deletion? Not at the thread linked in the OP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She certainly meets WP:PROF, as has already been noted, but I am confused about the statement of Fok not wanting a page as the note was added to the WP page by a user who has made six contributions to Wikipedia, and does not appear to be Fok. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what appears to be a noncontroversial article about a notable person, but remind the editor who requested deletion about WP:AUTOPROB. We don't have any evidence that they speak on behalf of the subject. (Or has she contacted @Jesswade88: directly off-wiki?) PamD 08:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has never contacted me off-wiki, I was just upset to see the requested deletion. Not sure what is best to do. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep *Lean delete, comment Uncertain, need confirmation Do we know why she requested deletion? I don't like to assume, but in the context of a US based NASA scientist asking for us not to have an article where their family connections might be a matter of public record in today's geopolitical climate, I'm sensitive to the potential for there being a safety issue. She's relatively low profile. I think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE CT55555(talk) 15:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless it can be proved that the subject has requested deletion. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
She has undeniably requested the deletion. See link. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What link? The only clue so far is this, which does not provide an indication that the user is even the subject. Curbon7 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, unless you know more than us, @The Gnome I find "undeniable" to be overstating the situation as I read it. CT55555(talk) 18:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person seems to meet WP:NPROF as stated above, and I am unconvinced by the legitimacy of the request if the only thing to point to is [1]. I would likely potentially change my !vote if it was verified that the subject actually requested it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify why I said keep: Elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union by itself would have been a keep from me in a regular AfD, multiple first author publications on Google Scholar with over 100 citations by itself would also have been a keep under WP:NPROF, without even having to consider WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Is this an attempt to unperson a scientist who has achieved success while working outside China? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Suggesting malicious intent by another editor constitutes harassment. You are expected to, at the very least, Xxanthippe, retract your abusive and insulting comment. And you're sincerely avised to refrain from such personal attacks in the future. The entire justification for this nomination is explicitly laid down in the text of the proposal and allows no misunderstanding. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't seem like WP:HARASSMENT at all to me (it's not a pattern of repeated behaviour for one). I interpretted it as referring to Sp96296, who has given no justification, not the AfD itself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That said, the use of unperson wasn't nice (IMO more ABF:ing than memory hole), whoever it was directed at. In newspeak wikispeak it could have been said something like "I'm not sure the PROD and/or afd was made in good faith." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two things that I am sure of is that WP:Before was not carried out thoroughly enough and that evidence that the subject herself requested deletion of the BLP is not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Very weak keep if the deletion request can be verified to be from the subject, otherwise keep. NPROF notability is very solid here, and this would be a speedy/snow keep in the absence of a possible request. It looks to me like the discussion should still end in keep, as being so notable as to be an essential subject for a wikipedia article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to notbaility and lack of evidence that the user requested deletion. Despite many requests, no evidence of this has been provided, I am not convinved she has requested deletion. The ambiguity about this is frustrating and I wish the nominator could make clear why they think the subject requested deletion. CT55555(talk) 03:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As I've outlined above, she is clearly notable, and there hasn't been a sufficient response in several days from the original claimant of the request. Curbon7 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2022 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mei-Ching_Fok

Leave a Reply