Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KH Kim


 * 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. If it were just a matter of WP:N, I would probably call this No Consensus, with a call for some major editing. But, there's enough here to make it doubtful this meets WP:V, which is a much stricter requirement. Anybody who still feels we should have an article about this person is encouraged to start a new version from scratch, in draft space, and make sure to address the concerns here about better sources and making sure everything is verifiable. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

KH Kim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1. This entire entry is "made up" with no reliable sources for the long family history and personal story that is part of the narrative. No sources are found on the web to corroborate anything biographical that has been written in the entry- the content is not verifiable. 2. Suspicion of "socking" in this entry. The entry may be "self-authored" under different aliases. HangulRover (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - article needs lots of work and I agree that personal biography elements are un-referenced and disproportionately long. However, she is cited multiple times in national magazines (Forbes, Newsweek, Economist) for her studies on creativity.Glendoremus (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you re listing the article. As mentioned before, the entire entry reads like a personal soap opera with ridiculous statements that are not verifiable. The multiple citations are simply quotes from this person mentioned in magazines- there is no "feature article" about her work anywhere except in her personal pages. Furthermore the google scholar citations are erroneous as it lists numerous others KH Kim's who work in the biomedical sciences and have thousands of citations. The KH Kim under consideration only has an h-index of 15 and not the inflated one listed.
 * The person does not have a titular position at William and Mary, and is an Associate Professor of Educational Foundations- Not Professor of Innovation and Creativity as listed by this page- this can be checked at the William and Mary pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HangulRover (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The entry states Kim is a descendent of King Gyeongsun (897–978), the last ruler of the kingdom of Silla - there is no evidence of this "royal lineage" anywhere! HangulRover (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The so-called "featured on the cover of Newsweek" story was checked and it contains 3 lines mentioning this person besides a host of numerous other researchers who have also studied the "creativity" problem. Stating her study was featured on the cover of Newsweek is a fabrication, or the very least stretching the actual facts.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  00:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The entry contained numerous fabrications such as royal lineage which was unverifiable; a professorship of creativity which was checked to be an associate professor of eduction position; and numerous other assertions that read like a personal soap opera with no 3rd party sources to verify the trials, tribulations and triumphs of this "luminary" from South Korea. Wikipedia is not an outlet for fabrication and self promotion. The entry was full of fraudulent claims and should be deleted from WikipediaHangulRover (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)contribs) HangulRover (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but only in its trimmed-down state. The article as nominated was heavily promotional. And it's difficult to get an accurate estimate of the citation counts for her works because her Google Scholar profile is larded up with papers by other people with similar names, but the ones that actually list KH Kim in the authors and have something about creativity in the titles are probably hers and have enough citations for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, The recommendations of David Eppstein were checked in terms of actual papers and citations. There are less than 10 papers that are actually this person's work and the h-index is actually 8 or 9. Also the person does not hold a titular position at William and Mary to warrant a notable listing but is actually an "associate professor of education". By fabricating the significance of her so-called study "featured" in Newsweek- when in fact dozens of others were also "featured" in the actual article, and simply juicing up the article with ridiculous claims pursuing multiple Phds, "royal lineage" and what not, the credibility of this article is called into question. There is suspicion of both socking and ghost auto-biographing this piece for the sake of free publicity. Wikipedia is not an outlet for fabrication and self promotion.HangulRover (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)contribs)
 * Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and scholar searches did not show that they pass WP:SCHOLAR or WP:PROF.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:01, 25 March 2017 (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.