Deletion of Symington W. Smith

Comment: Nearly all issues raised can be fixed with deeper extensive editing. Deletion of the entire article is much too heavy-handed, and deletion should always be the last resort. Regarding notability, the article was reviewed multiple times and approved long ago by experienced editors when the article was first submitted in the Articles for Creation, and conflict of interest was also cleared at the time. Subject is not really an academic, so  does not apply here, but I agree that GNG does. Again, even in terms of GNG, this was approved by other independent editors in AfC before. (The draft which was approved can be seen in the talk page of the article). Lacklustre citations about family members and  can all be easily edited away and deleted as opposed to deleting the entire article. What fellow editors may perceive as apparent synthesis can also be edited away. I also suggest fellow multilingual editors search Chinese-language sources on the subject using their Chinese name. There are many, and from major, national-level news sources such as The People's Daily, Xinhua News, etc. which may be unfamiliar to many in the West. Based on sources such as the subject's coverage in King's College London, their publications in independent journals and magazines with their own editorial boards such as ''The National Interest'' and ''Modern Diplomacy'' their work being further translated and cited by major news outlets such as Xinhua (all available and cited in the article), I argue that the article should be kept even if its at a significantly reduced length after further editing which removes all contentious material
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:SPS)

Comment: per  and , as suggested by {{U|Cunard}}, or it it "must" be kept, then this needs to be extensively edited of the promotional material and excessive detail, which is not usually allowed for |a person with marginal notability
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG||WP:BARE)

Comment: or '''redirect''' per suggestion of above editors.  I don't see any evidence of GNG notability, and certainly there is no evidence of NPROF.  Looks to me like a case of .  {{u| Pangaion}}, if you want to make a case for keeping this article, I suggest reading  and following the advice there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:THREE)