Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yew Kam Keong

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. Lack of reliable, independent secondary sources with significant coverage to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yew Kam Keong[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Notability tag has been present since August 2013 and never been removed. Some minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this in-depth article on him in Malaysia's The Star newspaper. In addition, 31 search results at Google scholar. And when you read the article, it is apparent he is a man of accomplishment. For example, he is officially acknowledged as Distinguished Talent on Creativity & Innovation by the Australian government in 2007.[1] Knox490 (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was the minor coverage I mentioned. The Google scholar citation counts are too low to be meaningful. I have not seen an h-index but suspect it will be very low as well and won't establish notability scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a "distinguished talent visa" is not an accomplishment or an award, it is a class of visa the government offers. I can't see how it can establish notability, even if were able to be verified, which it currently is not. Melcous (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is one seemingly WP:RS (noted above) but nearly ever other link in the references of current article is dead, won't open for me, does not mention him, or mentions him in passing. Most of the content is not verifiable. It seems like a puff piece and notability is not clear. There might be a claim to notability based on book authorship See World Cat, although these may be self or vanity published? and don't appear to meet the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. Melcous (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also noting that this was a paid article created on behalf of the subject, which I overlooked as it wasn't disclosed anywhere on this article's talk page or in edit summaries. Melcous (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that @Melcous: Your a gem. scope_creep^Talk 00:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The section on Yew Kam Keong#Books in the article on Yew Kam Keong seems to contain texts that are self-published (feel free to strike this if I am wrong about it though). Additionally, none of the sources in the Yew Kam Keong#References besides The Star [2] meet WP:RELIABILITY. The article in the Sarawak Tribune that is cited is dead [3] and others such as Mindbloom are not notable. [4] Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2019 (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.