Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youngsuk Chi

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youngsuk Chi

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

DELETE Disclosure - I am the author of the article. Article has not been improved nor does it represent the person being discussed accurately. It is difficult to cite due to lack of a significant number of cite-able sources. The edits that have been made do not add to the article and were sometimes false in a harmful way. For these reasons, Wikipedia is not the right medium to hold this person's history. {{MRM09 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)|MRM09}}— MRM09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The nominator was unfamiliar with the AfD process so I changed the formatting of the page to make it appear properly on the main AfD page. I have no opinion on the article itself. —Soap— 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I can find gNews confirmation for most of the facts presented in the current article, I'm not convinced the subject is notable. There are reliable sources for much of his employment history and whatnot, but I'm not sure any of it amounts to significant coverage. I also don't believe the awards Mr. Chi has received are significant enough to confer notability. There are some gScholar hits, but many come from publications owned by his current employer which raises questions of independence. » scoops “対談„ 19:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use some trimming but even if we took out everything that isn't sourced there would still be an article. The coverage is significant enough for me. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources that show his notability:[1][2][3]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not well-written. Those citations suggesting notoriety are primarily from the subject's employer, suggesting potential bias. The question of adequate cited "coverage" is irrelevant. The subject is not notable based on reliable, cited information. It also does not conform to a standard encyclopedic entry. {{TQPP (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)|TQPP}}— TQPP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This AfD and the editing history of the article smell fishy to me. I'd wager a beer or six that TQPP (talk · contribs), MRM09 (talk · contribs) & Ejchi (talk · contribs) are...closely-related...acounts that might violate WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT, including potential vote-stacking on this AfD. However, given that the article started out as basically a promotional piece, reading like a resume, I'd be inclined to delete this marginally-notable BLP. — Scientizzle 19:36, 13 May 2010 (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.