The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided. While the "delete" side would honor Ms. Liu's deletion request reported by the nominator, the "keep" side argues that Ms. Liu is notable and that no reason for deletion has been advanced, either in terms of Wikipedia policy or by Ms. Liu herself.
Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, to the extent relevant here, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Given that there is no rough consensus here, I must decide whether to delete the article in application of this policy or to let it be kept by default in the absence of a consensus to delete.
First, I must decide whether BLPREQUESTDELETE applies at all. Because that policy is intended to be applied by the closer, I am making this determination myself rather than following any consensus about this issue in this AfD. I find that Ms. Liu is indeed "relatively unknown", in part because she has not been the subject of media coverage as far as I can tell. I next must decide whether Ms. Liu is a "public figure" in the sense of BLPREQUESTDELETE. That phrase is a term of art in U.S. constitutional law, and means, according to SCOTUS case law, "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs", or "those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies'" (see Public figure#United States). Because Wikipedia is mostly written by Americans, and that particular U.S. case law has had a worldwide influence, I am interpreting BLPREQUESTDELETE's phrase "public figure" in accordance with it. Seen in this light, I am of the view that Ms. Liu is not a public figure because none of the aforementioned criteria apply to her. This means that the requirements for the application of BLPREQUESTDELETE are in principle met.
But I still need to decide whether or not I should delete the article, because BLPREQUESTDELETE provides that the article "may" be deleted, not that it must be. Although BLPREQUESTDELETE does not provide directions about which criteria should inform this decision, it implicitly requires that there must at least be some rational basis for deletion beyond the mere desire of the subject. If it were otherwise, BLPREQUESTDELETE would provide that articles must be deleted at the request of their non-public figure subjects, but it does not.
But in this case, no real reason for deletion has been advanced. In particular, Ms. Liu's notability is not contested. There is speculation that Ms. Liu may want the article deleted to prevent harassment, but this is not borne out by the article's history, which is short and unproblematic. Because I read BLPREQUESTDELETE to mean that I must not delete an article in the absence of a policy-based or at least rational reason for deletion, I decline to apply BLPREQUESTDELETE and the article is kept by default. Sandstein 10:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
The subject, Fang Liu, has been in email contact with me and wishes the article to be removed or, if it cannot be removed, to be reduced down to a stub with the bare minimum of information about her. Despite repeated requests on my part, she has not provided any more information on why she prefers not to have an article about her. I disagree with this request: I think she is clearly notable, through WP:PROF, by multiple criteria: #C1, highly cited publications, and #C3, fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor, the American Statistical Association; note that unlike GNG, PROF does not require independent sourcing (although in a sense the citations to her publications provide large numbers of independent sources). More strongly, I would like it to be the case (as it is for several societies in related areas but not yet for the ASA) that we have articles on all female ASA fellows; instead, deletion of this article would create a long-lasting or permanent hole in our coverage, and I oppose it. Therefore my opinion on this AfD is to keep the article. Nevertheless, it is within Liu's right to request a discussion of this deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, so I am initiating this discussion. Because this is a BLPREQUESTDELETE discussion, if it ends in no consensus the result may be deletion rather than a no-consensus keep. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgmentand
The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material- I am not convinced by this discussion that the burden to keep this article has been met at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided. While the "delete" side would honor Ms. Liu's deletion request reported by the nominator, the "keep" side argues that Ms. Liu is notable and that no reason for deletion has been advanced, either in terms of Wikipedia policy or by Ms. Liu herself.
Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, to the extent relevant here, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Given that there is no rough consensus here, I must decide whether to delete the article in application of this policy or to let it be kept by default in the absence of a consensus to delete.
First, I must decide whether BLPREQUESTDELETE applies at all. Because that policy is intended to be applied by the closer, I am making this determination myself rather than following any consensus about this issue in this AfD. I find that Ms. Liu is indeed "relatively unknown", in part because she has not been the subject of media coverage as far as I can tell. I next must decide whether Ms. Liu is a "public figure" in the sense of BLPREQUESTDELETE. That phrase is a term of art in U.S. constitutional law, and means, according to SCOTUS case law, "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs", or "those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies'" (see Public figure#United States). Because Wikipedia is mostly written by Americans, and that particular U.S. case law has had a worldwide influence, I am interpreting BLPREQUESTDELETE's phrase "public figure" in accordance with it. Seen in this light, I am of the view that Ms. Liu is not a public figure because none of the aforementioned criteria apply to her. This means that the requirements for the application of BLPREQUESTDELETE are in principle met.
But I still need to decide whether or not I should delete the article, because BLPREQUESTDELETE provides that the article "may" be deleted, not that it must be. Although BLPREQUESTDELETE does not provide directions about which criteria should inform this decision, it implicitly requires that there must at least be some rational basis for deletion beyond the mere desire of the subject. If it were otherwise, BLPREQUESTDELETE would provide that articles must be deleted at the request of their non-public figure subjects, but it does not.
But in this case, no real reason for deletion has been advanced. In particular, Ms. Liu's notability is not contested. There is speculation that Ms. Liu may want the article deleted to prevent harassment, but this is not borne out by the article's history, which is short and unproblematic. Because I read BLPREQUESTDELETE to mean that I must not delete an article in the absence of a policy-based or at least rational reason for deletion, I decline to apply BLPREQUESTDELETE and the article is kept by default. Sandstein 10:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
The subject, Fang Liu, has been in email contact with me and wishes the article to be removed or, if it cannot be removed, to be reduced down to a stub with the bare minimum of information about her. Despite repeated requests on my part, she has not provided any more information on why she prefers not to have an article about her. I disagree with this request: I think she is clearly notable, through WP:PROF, by multiple criteria: #C1, highly cited publications, and #C3, fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor, the American Statistical Association; note that unlike GNG, PROF does not require independent sourcing (although in a sense the citations to her publications provide large numbers of independent sources). More strongly, I would like it to be the case (as it is for several societies in related areas but not yet for the ASA) that we have articles on all female ASA fellows; instead, deletion of this article would create a long-lasting or permanent hole in our coverage, and I oppose it. Therefore my opinion on this AfD is to keep the article. Nevertheless, it is within Liu's right to request a discussion of this deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, so I am initiating this discussion. Because this is a BLPREQUESTDELETE discussion, if it ends in no consensus the result may be deletion rather than a no-consensus keep. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgmentand
The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material- I am not convinced by this discussion that the burden to keep this article has been met at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)