Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Pho

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. (non-admin closure) NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 05:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Kevin Pho[edit]

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

Searches are literally not finding anything better than either PR, interviews (regardless of wherever published) or his own authored articles and websites, none of that establishes notability itself and it's clear this currently only exists as a PR business listing; the NYT, naturally as shown, are his own authored articles as part a column, therefore that inherits him no automatic notability whatsoever and it's clear the history itself it's quite likely either the subject himself or someone involved started this PR article. While the author asked for restoration, and attempts are open to being made, there's enough to suggest an AfD is necessary to gauge the concerns and chances here. FWIW, this is what the author offered as sourcing but examining them still finds only announcements, business listings, quotes, etc. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am the one who requested the restore from the G11 delete, and I am not the author of this article nor connected to the subject of the article. Medicalreporter (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I added several reliable sources that cover the subject in various degrees of depth. There are hundreds of appearances of the subject in various outlets. I think there is little doubt that this doctor passes GNG, and I regret to say it, but this AfD and the initial G11 speedy deletion were very much so misguided. Medicalreporter (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a variety of sources and improved the content. Please feel free to take a look and vote now. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SwisterTwister, I was wondering what research you did to determine this person is not notable? I quickly found NBCNews, AMA Wire, INewSource.org, and CNN, CNN, ISourceNews, and NBCNews are all reliable non-PR which give him significant coverage. If you look at the weakest sources which is AMA Wire, you can see that it is not written in Q&A format. ST as a sign of good faith, I would recommend you withdraw this nomination, this person is undisputedly notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are still only announcements, mentions and similar and that's what the article contains since he's certainly not notable as an author so that section is unconvincing and everything else is simply about his speech events, company and similar. Notability is not inherited. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Wait what? They are not announcements lets take a look at this source from the Modern Medicine Network, this is an in detailed source regarding Kevin Pho influence on the industry which he is repeatedly mentioned throughout the 7 pages article written by Ken Terry a third party source subject to editorial review. This is a reliable source by all means and certainly not an announcement. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the acceptability of the Modern Medicine article as a source. Modern Medicine is a UBM Life Sciences publication, and is a marketing and public-relations media company, see UBM Life Sciences is a an event, information, and marketing services business. UBM is owned by PR Newswire, the press release company.--FeralOink (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though the parent company has a variety of business arms, but each of their publications lists editorial staff and writers: http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/content/about-us We cannot discredit an outlet because its parent company is multifaceted. Delta13C (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are also numerous actual books that have content related to Kevin Pho. Our subject seems to be involved with something called "Wikipedia isn't really the patient's friend" (not relevant here though). There is an independent book review about a book written by him, as well as many independent writing in journals. Certainly this passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I added the source in Medical Economics that was mentioned above. The article is indeed well referenced with solid RSes, which are abundant enough to be easily apparent in web searches and Google Scholar. This AfD should be withdrawn. -Delta13C (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is a PR business listing. The subject is not notable, see SwisterTwister's remarks, and my comment about sources such as Medical Economics/Modern Medicine above. Pho is a blogger and is mostly cited for brief how-to's pertaining to online reputation management and social media.--FeralOink (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be specific as to how this appears to be a PR listing? The content is neutral and consistent with dozens of RSes. On the topic for which he is an expert, this article is reflective of the subject's notability. -Delta13C (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FeralOink The reasons you listed "blogger and is mostly cited for brief how-to's pertaining to online reputation management and social media" has never denied a person notability. We use sources, third party RS. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I assume this is a vast imprvement on whatever was previously deleted (I didn't see it), but there's no problem with this now. Roundly and reliably sourced, it seems to be. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Gbooks results alone reach WP:BASIC without much thought, I'm a bit mystified by this nomination. --joe decker ^talk 02:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2017 (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.