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. The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article while the sourcing in this article could definitely be improved. The nominator should perhaps consider moving to other subject areas when suggesting articles that should be deleted as their assessments of academics are not shared by other participants in these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Keysuk Kim[edit]

Stephen Keysuk Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The only references cited are academic user profiles and listings of self-published scholarly articles in scientific databases. Both the university profile and the database listings could actually be posted by the subject, so they are not independent sources. Furthermore, the citation count, which may indicate some importance, is merely a vanity metric and cannot be used alone to establish anything. The page is virtually self-promotional until reliable, independent sources are added. Multi7001 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NACADEMIC-5, as he holds a named chair. His work is not self published, and is highly cited. --Mvqr (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Citation count is a vanity metric and not a reliable measure of notability. It is similar to social media shares. Some of the citations can very well be friends, students, colleagues, or other affiliates who cite the work in their own material. As to your mention of the subject holding a chair position at an organization, it isn't mentioned in the article or the sources. Overall, the page reads more like a resume or portfolio than an encyclopedia page. Multi7001 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Citations are not a vanity metric. As for the named chair, here's a citation for you: Journal of Business Research: "Stephen K. Kim is the Raisbeck Endowed Professor of Marketing at Iowa State University’s Ivy College of Business." --Mvqr (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article cited about being named chair is authored by the subject. And I don't believe that becoming chair of an organization establishes notability for inclusion, as notability is not inherited. Typical pages I've encountered on similar subjects usually have awards, honors, in-depth coverage of the subject in an academic journal editorial piece, mentions in books, and news media stories. This page just seems like an indiscriminate collection of information and self-promotion. Multi7001 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And again you call this "self-promotion". Substantiate your accusation or withdraw. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm sorry, but citations are vastly different from social media shares. Throughout academia they are considered evidence of impact. NACADEMIC gives clear instructions on how to interpret citation counts and how they may satisfy the very first criterion. Reference 2 clearly states that Kim holds a named chair. I hope you won't now argue that the university is not a reliable source for this. And you still have not addressed your accusation that this is "self promotional". --Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Holds a named chair (meets WP:NACADEMIC#5), highly cited (meets WP:NACADEMIC-#1). Several of his publications have citations running into the hundreds, that can't all be self-citations. (And if you know ow to interpret them, citation counts are certainly not a "vanity metric"). And, Multi7001, what makes you think that this stub is "self-promotional"?? Are you suggesting that Vycl1994 is Dr. Kim?? Please provide evidence for that accusation or withdraw it. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: The page reads like a resume and not encyclopedic. Tag added. Multi7001 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If you think this stub looks like a resume, you obviously have never seen a resume... Tag removed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please do not remove the tag until the page has been improved. Multi7001 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't put frivolous tags, that is considered disruptive. Please also see WP:BOLD and WP:BATTLE. --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There must be independent source(s) added, or the page should be revised because it looks promotional. The only references cited are a resume/CV and a user-generated directory by the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is clearly a renowned scholar in his field of research, and some of his works are highly cited. Scholars are not celebrities with various news coverage, and he comes from a non-English speaking country. Perhaps someone who knows Korean can contribute some Korean language sources?--Sima Sam (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The purpose of this proposed deletion discussion is not to downplay the subject's presumed notability. But rather to debate whether it is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion in the article space. If refraining from adding independent sources and relying only on user-generated sources that the subject created is the norm for pages involving scholars, then there should be no problem with keeping the page. However, the page will look promotional. Multi7001 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb. It is not promotional any more (if ever it was). There are 3 reliable sources, one of them independent of the subject. It would be nice if somebody could find some more sources so that the article could be expanded, but as it stands it meets criteria 1 and 5 of NACADEMIC. I would remind Multi7001 yet again that they still have not retracted their personal attack about this article being "self-promotional". I see no evidence that the article creator is the article subject. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per WP:Notability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." In my opinion, this should apply to all articles, including those of scholars. Otherwise, it will look like an indiscriminate collection of information. My intentions are in good faith and solely to encourage discussion and improve the encyclopedia. Multi7001 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep as he clears weakly NPROF, after being in the field almost 25 years these citation numbers are decent but not terribly impressive. Still there are 11 articles with 100+ citations which should clear the bar for NPROF. --hroest 03:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Named chair and some publications with over 100 citations each seems like a pass of WP:NPROF to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC) P.S. Citation count is very much not just "a vanity metric". -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: To be specific, citation counts are vanity metrics when they are inadequate and involve the counting of non-peer-reviewed work. In the case of the subject, the count is modest at best. In my opinion, there should be more than just a modest citation count. There should also be awards and honors, as well as mentions in editorial scholarly publications, books, or mass media outlets, independent of the subject. Otherwise, it would be an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You might want to be careful to not give the impression of WP:BLUDGEON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: As previously stated, my intentions are in good faith. The purpose of this proposed deletion discussion is not to downplay or undermine the significance of the article's subject. Rather, it is to encourage discussion and improve the encyclopedia. I am neither against nor supportive of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 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.