Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson K. Gao

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. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson K. Gao

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

This was proposed for deletion (PRODded) by User:AndyTheGrump with rationale "Abysmal auto-hagiography. If an article is justified for this individual, it needs to be written from, scratch, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as proper encyclopaedic content. There is nothing here worth saving." It was deprodded earlier today by its main author, User:Jkxgao. I think the prod rationale was spot on - if there's any notability here WP:TNT applies. Michig (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried asking the author/subject to provide references to demonstrate notability according to our criteria, but had no sensible reply. The only real claim to notability is as an academic, and I haven't been able to locate anything which suggests that he meets the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. It is possible that he meets it, but the article entirely fails to provide anything to demonstrate this amongst all the invalid Wikipedia citations, links to Amazon, Scribe, YouTube etc. This isn't the first AfD either - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Gao which likewise closed as delete as lacking evidence of notability. If someone ever locates evidence that Gao does meet our notability criteria, an article would need writing from scratch, by an uninvolved contributor who understands Wikipedia policy, and what the purpose of an encyclopaedic biography is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've worked on the article but needs more time to clean up.Sofiamar (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia notability policy - making a few trivial edits to an article does nothing to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sofiamar has been blocked as a sockpuppet created to !vote in an unrelated AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God I read all of it. Ladies and gents, we are here to ascertain the subject's notability. I can understand someone writing a stub on someone marginally notable. However, I cannot imagine anyone writing a long in-depth piece unless (1) the person is really very notable or (2) they are so stuck up their own backsides that they think themselves important to be in an encyclopedia and that they are the only suitable author. Given the claims made about the subject are transparently hollow, I assume it is the latter. I really hope China isn't following India in terms of producing people who will pen their autobiography, using flowery hagriographic prose that would get them thrown out of a introductory creative writing class for being nearly unreadable. So Delete please. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't believe you read it all! Bravo! It is very hard to figure out if this person meets WP:ACADEMICS due to the problems in the article, but I'm not seeing evidence of academic notability. It's a shame to remove this article based on all of the work that went into it. However, it has a serious number of problems. First, it uses WP in references, which is not appropriate. All other references are to the subject's own articles. Then, it goes way beyond the topic at hand with information about the person's interest in music, etc., which don't apply to notability as a scientist. I don't see any third-party references, but if we're looking at this with academic notability in mind that is not the key problem. However, I don't see anything here that would lead to notability as an academic, either. Also, note that the creator of the article is JKGAO. sigh LaMona (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's so much puffery here that it makes it very difficult to find any actual notability. At best it's a case for WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the name of the editor who created the article it looks like it is an autobiography. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can take that as read: though the fact that a caption to a photograph in the article (now removed) stated that was taken "in front of our house" would appear to be the clincher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2015 (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.