Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Youn


 * 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. Delete, especially as two of the Keep votes have been struck out by the editors who originally made them. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Youn

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This physician does not appear to be particularly notable. Publishing journal articles is fairly common in the field. The books don't appear to have gained any significant reviews/sales to be notable. This looks to be potentially a vanity page or part of a PR campaign. MartinezMD (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Weak keep BostonMensa (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete When one source is him "dishing on famous operations" and discussing the best instagram fillers, we know the article has problems. Trivial sources, almost appears promotional. Being Board certified is nothing spectacular, basically means he's licensed to practice medicine, I'd be worried if he wasn't. Rest of the sources are fluff pieces or have a connection to him. Might have a chance at ACADEMIC if his citation index is high enough, I suspect it isn't, based on the tone of the article and the other sources used, but I'll leave that to someone else who can confirm it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors,  and Michigan.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete completely not notable; possible undelcared paid editing in violation of wikpedia guidelines. --2600:6C50:797E:8271:3C43:F601:A34E:97FE (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - this editor has made no other edits outside of this AFD vote. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject has been significantly covered in multiple reliable sources. This piece here from Hour Detroit while partly an interview still contains significant independent coverage and contributes toward notability if not verification of controversial facts. There is a very significant piece here in the Seattle Times and another example of significant coverage here in the Detroit News. More significant coverage here. I believe this article covers a notable topic which has gained significant attention in multiple sources. This coverage is sustained, sourcing dates over a ten year period and is from reliable and independent sources. Hence, the article meets the general notability guideline and is eligible to be included as a stand alone article. The article content needs work, but I am not seeing any proof of paid editing or advertising. The article subject is incredibly popular online and has sustained, significant media attention. It is entirely plausible any issue with tone may come down to a fan creating the piece, but this does not warrant deletion. Editors with issue regarding tone should tag and/or improve the article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Liz as much as I stand by my submission from a technical spirit, I would support closing this as keep as it’s clear I’m a minority viewpoint here. Happy to concede. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only case for notability appears to be through GNG, and the only coverage appears to be puff-piece churnalism interviews that I don't think are sufficiently reliable and independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom and David Eppstein. Coverage appears to be promotional, and not independent of the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - When you take away the promotional materials, the couple of interviews and book review discussed above, there's not enough independent coverage there to meet WP:GNG, and I don't know which specialized notability guideline would apply. WP:ACADEMIC for the journals? Doesn't meet any of those criteria. Fails WP:ANYBIO as well. Coverage just isn't there to warrant an article. - Aoidh (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, but in my view notability is borderline. My view on the sources that MaxnaCarta pointed out is that the first, third, and fourth might not be independent since the first one is mostly an interview, and second and fourth are similar. The third one's content doesn't appear to be independent of the subject either. I did find , but I'm not sure it's significant coverage. I do agree with most of MaxnaCarta's thoughts apart from the independence of the sources (and therefore whether they count towards the GNG too). However, I searched WP:TWL and found better quality sources, including is useful, but doesn't count toward the GNG. So does barely with the sigcov , is useful but doesn't meet sigcov in my opinion.  falls just short of sigcov in my opinion (for completeness, here are others I looked at but determined that they didn't contribute toward the GNG: ). On balance, I believe that the sources are sufficient to write a policy-compliant article that provides a minimum of encyclopedic information and that the sources justify a pass of the GNG. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking my reccomendation because my argument no longer holds, but I believe the rest of my comment still may be useful. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 18:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.