Jia Liu (academic) : MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Article subject's level of academic influence and awards do not match Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria either ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 11:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep looking at his GS profile it seems like he is highly active with 10k citations overall and 18 publications with 100+ citations.  This is more than enough to pass WP:NPROF based on previous outcomes of deletion discussions.  Also clearly his publications are in some of the highest profile journals, well cited by other academics and he has had an impact on the field.  If we are following consistent criteria then this should be a keep.  -- hroest 15:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hannes Röst I am not doubting you, but as a non subject expert here how do I parse his influence/contribution from other authors?  In natural sciences, a larger list of co-authors is common practice.  Is your argument that he satisfies point #1 of WP:NPROF ?  I explicitly came to oppose, because I didn't see these criteria being met, but the Google Scholar should help with finding sources that indicate his influence.  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shushugah : this is mainly in line with previous discussions on WP:NPROF and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators .  But yes, determining "influence" is hard and it is hard even for academics themselves.  Overall the consensus is that NPROF#1 can be measured by citations in the field as a measure of how much influence a person had on the field.  Co-authorship can be tricky and there are cases of people who are on tons of papers as a middle author which would probably make them ineligible for NPROF#1 but this is not the case here.  See also the explanation of NPROF#1: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." which is what I have argued here.  -- hroest 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as being cofounder of business praised on Forbes, and being on an MIT list.  BhamBoi ( talk ) 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The citation record in the Google scholar profile is persuasive in convincing PROF-C1 is met, and this is further strengthened by the MIT Review listing of him as an innovator.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 09:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a tricky one because he probably will become notable by N:PROF fairly soon, but my opinion is he isn't there yet.  He works in a highly cited field, so his publication list, while excellent, doesn't leap out as so outrageously good as to instantly assure notability, and a lot of his publications predate his professorship, meaning that it's unclear whether they add to his notability or that of his supervisor at the time.  He is currently only an assistant professor, which doesn't meet NPROF, and has no other feature that meets it.  Forbes lists are pretty unhelpful for this as everyone and his dog is on a Forbes under-something up-and-coming someoneorother list.  I suspect it's WP:TOOSOON but almost certain he'll arrive.  It seems a bit counter-productive to delete, but by current rules he really is a delete and it's not really fair on everyone else to allow one up-and-coming academic the advertisement of a Wikipedia article just because he's at Harvard and in the in-crowd with MIT, while denying it to someone at a lesser institution with lesser academic-social contacts.  If we do keep this, we set a precedent of keeping academics who seem to be on the way up, before they've actually got there.  Elemimele ( talk ) 09:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no rule to have assistant profs being always non-notable, there is just a consensus that they often are not because of their citation record.  however, this is not the case here, he likely compares favorably to other tenured profs in his field.  Also @ Elemimele : can you point to a bias of someone being deemed non-notable because they are at a (as you called it) "lesser" institution?  I could point you to various counter-examples where the institution did not factor in at all (it mostly doesnt here in these discussions).  -- hroest 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) I don't think being an assistant prof makes him non-notable; it's just that it doesn't make him notable.  (2) The nub of the matter is that his only real claim to notability is highly-cited literature.  My statement is that much of his highly-cited literature predates his professorship (by age, some of it stems from his undergraduate years).  It is possible that a lot of this was greatly influenced by his supervisors during the time he worked under them, and reflects their influence and notability, not his.  In general, C1 claims for notability should be literature that is undoubtedly the brain-child of the article's subject.  (3) I believe that he is quite likely a rising star.  I shouldn't have mentioned institutions; that clouded the issue.  But my point was that we should be cautious of allowing a premature article about someone who in my opinion is likely to go places, my opinion being based on the fact he's landed a position at Harvard and attracted attention from MIT.  In effect, I was commenting on my own systematic bias towards respectable Western academia.  But ultimately, this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn.  It does no harm if we wait a year or two.  I think currently he's strictly speaking a delete by the rules, but I won't lose any sleep over the article being kept, because in a year of two, he'll probably pass.  Elemimele ( talk ) 20:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your thoughtful points, I mostly agree with you on the subject matter and all your points but I come to a slightly different (subjective) conclusion as I tend to generally lean against deletion.  -- hroest 01:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for aformentioned reasons and because it doesn't seem like the deletion request was made in good faith.  Thornfield Hall ( talk ) 03:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Thornfield Hall [ reply ] Comment .  This guy's Scopus profile seems very impressive, but it also contains a ton of covid papers that don't appear in his Harvard publication list as well as papers published with numerous affiliations that are not listed here or on his linkedin (like, 28 anomalous affiliations, going back to 2008).  Is there a virologist of the same name?  JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think maybe there are three Jia Liu virologists?  [15] is affiliated with the University of Arkansas, [16] is affiliated with Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and [17] is affiliated with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  They all appear unrelated to the subject here.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Sandstein , is there a reason for this re-re-listing, rather than just closure of the discussion?  Silver seren C 23:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason is that there is not yet clear consensus.  Sandstein 08:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The Forbes article only has a passing mention of the subject.  It has no significant coverage of the subject itself.  Furthermore, the Harvard sources are not independent of the subject.  There are no useful sources listed except for the MIT Under 30 article.  Multi7001 ( talk ) 02:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:PROF , and WP:TOOSOON (soft delete).  We have almost never kept an article for an assistant professor.  Get back to me when he earns tenure.  Bearian ( talk ) 01:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CU Note This article was created by a sock from a large UPE spam ring.  See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midnight In Zoho for details.  I was about to delete it per WP:G5 , but will leave it since this discussion is already underway.  Girth Summit (blether) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UPE rings deserve no quarter.  Academic notability standards are not yet met, and the available sources fail to be sufficiently independent and detailed to argue for notability by any other means.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:29, 19 April 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.

Discussion outcome: delete