- 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. Davewild (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ming C. Lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Associate editor in chief for an IEEE journal, professor. Impressive, but I don't think it quite establishes notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The nominator and Qworty need to re-read WP:PROF, because it's very obvious that she passes criterion #C5. Aside from that, with Google scholar citation counts of 1592, 618, 355, 309, etc. (skipping the 456-cite paper that appears to be a different MC Lin) she also passes #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear keep on arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear keep on #C2 - she received IEEE VGTC Technical Achievement Award 2010 and #C8 - she is the Editor-in-Chief of IEEE TVCG. Wedit2011 8:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC).
- Good points. I have updated the article to state that she is EiC. And of course, even just one of these criteria would be sufficient reason for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear keep RayTalk 21:06, 8 February 2011 (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.