Deletion of Keqin Li

Comment: Passes  without even breaking a sweat. It could stand a good clean-up, but really, what couldn't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Nevermind, just saw the former content was in a better state because the things were removed around (including a reference of the official site of the subject, which while it is a primary source, it is still vital). I have no objections then, clearly passes #C3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: as being a fellow of the IEEE is the actual example in the guidelines for how someone passes #C3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: It's hardly the sign of a good faith nomination to delete almost all of the content from the article and then claim that it should be deleted all the way because it's so short (the more-complete pre-nominated version is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keqin_Li&oldid=874820512 here). Even in its shortened state, the article clearly demonstrates a pass of . And the claim that the anonymous editor who expanded it from its sub-stub state should be reverted and their edits used as an excuse to delete the article is, without evidence, a |personal attack
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:NPA)