Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euntaek Kim
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 3 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 11:34, 3 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Courcelles 00:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Euntaek Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term undersourced BLP of questionable notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: haven't looked too closely into this one yet, but she has been the subject of feature stories and a TV special in her region of the United States, so there's a decent notability claim to be made.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article contains several sources to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - plenty of claims of notability; the sourcing is a bit weak (several of the links are dead), but I think it's just about enough to pass our guidelines. Robofish (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2010 (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.