Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhu Xiaofeng

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 delete. L Faraone 00:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Xiaofeng

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A complete, complete mess of an article that appears to be a direct, poorly-done translation from the Chinese Wikipedia article (which itself is a mess, but less so without the linguistic mess). The person may be notable, but I am not finding enough evidence of the person's notability, and the peacock nature of the description (both here and on Chinese Wikipedia) gives me strong belief that this person isn't notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much agree with nom. I suspect we may have Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo to thank for this mess. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he were notable (very dubious proposition), WP:TNT would definitely apply. Ray^Talk 23:00, 28 May 2013 (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.