Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young-min 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The result was Withdrawn by Nominator‎. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young-min Kim[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)

Disputed draftification. Improperly sourced. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Distinguished professor with national awards passes at least two of the WP:PROF criteria (only one needs to be met to keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator is in good faith mistaken in describing this as a disputed draftification. It was not moved from article space to draft space. It was first moved by its author from user space to project space, which was another good faith error. User:Liz moved it to draft space because it didn't belong in project space. Its author then moved it to article space. There was no dispute, only a roundabout movement. User:Timtrent also doesn't say what is wrong with the sourcing. The article has been reference-bombed, but that is not a reason for deletion or draftification. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article should be tagged as making statements in the voice of Wikipedia that should be attributed to other scholars. That is not a reason for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR: It has been brought to my attention that I misinterpreted the revision history, form which I apologise. All !votes are to keep and withdrawing is thus valid 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 13 August 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.