Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kim

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Speedy Keep - more an a statistical blip are requesting speedy keep and WP:SNOW applies here IMHO.. Tawker 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Kim

[edit]
James Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a hot subject, and I understand that. I can relate to people who want to talk about and commiserate after the tragedy of this brave man's death. Nominating this article for deletion is going to make me a villain to some, but so be it. It has been noted that this story garnered a great deal of attention from media spectators, particularly on the internet. I imagine with so much attention being paid, it was inevitable that this story should come to Wikipedia. Be that as it may, Wikipedia isn't a blog. Wikipedia isn't a memorial.

There was no article for James Kim prior to his being featured in the 24/7 news cycle. The talk page for his article mentions his notability through his journalism career. This can only be seen as a revisionist justification; no one had seen the subject as noteworthy until the news media placed so much focus on it.

Others have argued that his death may serve as a lesson to others; that some may learn from the events. I can see from the article and the talk page that there is even discussion of "mistakes" made. Personally, I find the subject extremely distressing. I actually got a little nauseous reading what I felt was morbid overanalysis of a horrifying series of events. Personal feelings aside however, if people are looking for lessons on Survival skills or to read about the dangers of Hypothermia, then let them go to those articles. I can honestly say that I don't think anyone will come here seeking knowledge on subjects of this sort.

I think it is best to leave current event stories to current event story outlets, regardless of the emotional component. Mael-Num 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hugely inappropriate for deletion. This is a truly bizarre suggestion, given that anyone who has published anything with an ISBN number attached to is appropriate fodder for a wikipedia article, no matter how obscure and insignificant they are. Some people become known through life, and others through death. The article is quite thorough and factual, and these facts are thought-provoking and capable of stirring public debate about travel safety. Case studies of particular people are relevant to these debates. This is Wikipedia at its finest. If this is a candidate for deletion, then I am going to recommend the 5,000,000 nobodys who have been awareded publishing contracts and now have stubs that say "John Doe is the author of..." for deletion. If there is ever another family stuck in the woods through misfortune, and the news says "In an incident reminiscent of the demise of James Kim..." people should be able to come to Wikipedia to find out who this man was, how he came to be known to millions, and how he died. Aron Ralston has an article here because he got trapped in a canyon under a rock for days, cut off his own hand to free himself, and live to write a book about it. Kim, already in the media due to his career, walked 16 miles through the remote winter wilderness to save his stranded family and died. While we're at it, should we delete both of these articles using the very logic of Mael-Num? Or is it the book written by the survivor that makes all the difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.108.68.7 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Inappropriate reasons given for deletion. Mael-Num, your reasons for deletion do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. For an individual to be included in Wikipedia that individual does NOT have to be noteworthy before the events for which he garnered media attention, whether he is alive or dead. If there was no article about James Kim prior to his notoriety in the 24/7 news cycle it would be irrelevant and has no relation to Wikipedia guidelines; again Wikipedia guidelines do NOT state an individual must be noteworthy prior to the events for which that individual garnered media attention; obviously if that was the case, innumerable articles regarding individuals like Polly Klaas or John Mark Karr would also be deleted. James Kim need not have been noteworthy for his journalism career. Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines do NOT state that an individual's death necessarily has to provide "lessons" or useful information regarding survival skills, any other skills, or practical information about the physical ailments from which they died; whether the events surrounding the individual's notoriety are practically useful to the reader or not and whether or not those events provide "lessons" is absolutely irrelevant under Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, you cite emotion and memorializing in this article, but no such emotion or memorializing is present in the article (perhaps you could cite specific instances of it?). The only memorializing I see is a link to CNET's memorial of James Kim; whether that link is valid to include within the article (rather than solely as an "external link") is another discussion. If you feel this article should be deleted, please provide reasons for deletion that conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Blacksun1942 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One could argue that an article was warranted before his disappearance, but sufficient information about the man was not available to those who would write it. If his career was significant enough and he passes WP:BIO, he should stay. There certainly isn't a lack of interest in information about him. For what it's worth, I'd be quicker to keep this article than the one for, say, Michael Jordan's father, which is there pretty much solely because of his untimely death (after passing an AfD). -- Tim D 08:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's not muddy the waters. Michael Jordan's father is a separate issue. All the same, as you clearly demonstrate in your response, you take exception to the fact that this similarly unnotable person received a Wikipedia entry due in part to popular media attention to the subject. You make the argument that Michael Jordan's father should be deleted because the man was little known outside of his association with one of the best known basketball players of all time. So why shouldn't that exact same logic apply to James Kim, because if I bumped into James Kim (or his father, wife, brother, or son) before or after this event, I would not recognize him at all. Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mael-Num, your rationale that James Kim was not notable before the events surrounding his death which garnered media attention is NOT part of Wikipedia guidelines regarding inclusion OR deletion. Neither is the fact that you wouldn't recognize him in the street. Wikipedia guidelines do NOT state that an individual must be noteworthy before the events which garnered media attention and focus on that individual, whether that individual is alive or dead. Wikipedia guidelines do NOT state that an individual must be personally recognizable to you before or after the events which garnered them media spotlight. You have NOT used standards which conform to Wikipedia guidelines in order to justify your nomination for the deletion of this article. Using your rationale, countless other articles would be deleted as well; Was Polly Klaas noteworthy before her death? Would you recognize her face even now? How about John Mark Karr? Was he note-worthy before the events in which he was involved that garnered him media attention? How about the climber Aron Ralston, the man who became stuck in Blue John Canyon and amputated his own arm to escape and survive? Was he famous before that event? Would you recognize him before or after that event? Once again, if you feel an article should be deleted, you MUST provide reasons for deletion that conform to Wikipedia guidelines. You have not done so. Blacksun1942 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, don't muddy the logic either...I didn't say that two individuals were comparable. I used Mr. Jordan as an example of a case where an article was kept solely for the situation surrounding his death; before death, James Kim was notable for other things (of course, James Jordan did beget Michael, but I'd generally say that biological notability is a little different). I'm sure that if it stays, the article will ultimately be about his life and career, not about his death. And again, for what it's worth, if I had bumped into James Kim before his death, I definitely would have recognized him. Notability doesn't mean that everyone everywhere will know the individual :) -- Tim D 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Article is tightly sourced and provides a biography of a person that has been in the news recently. It doesn't matter if the story disappears from the headlines in five days, this is perfectly within the scope of Wikipedia and WP:BIO. ~ trialsanderrors 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't look at the talk page, but to me the article doesn't contain any morbid analysis. It's actually quite well written. I'm not sure what your point is about WP:NOT a blog, since this has plenty of major non-internet media outlets. Similarly, the nom seems to be incorrect about WP:NOT a memorial, as that section is really intended to prevent family members from creating vanity pages about dead relatives or lists of 9/11 or Iraq victims or such. The real concern, as usual, is notability. WP:BIO used to have some line about treating coverage of one day's events as only one instance of media coverage, but I've got a sense that the fact this ordeal got stretched out over several days would provide just the loophole needed to keep the article. Excluding that consideration, which seems to be moot, he clearly meets WP:BIO.--Kchase T 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you didn't look at the talk page, which is what my comment was addressing in part, then perhaps you should try to read it before attempting a rebuttal. If you had, then you might understand my statement about WP:NOT a blog (i.e. that people are gathering on the talk page do exactly what bloggers do on pages dedicated to that pasttime: chat and exchange opinions). Your opinion based on the intentions behind the creation of WP:NOT a memorial are moot. This isn't a memorial. Light a candle; this isn't the place for people to, again, log in and commiserate which is exactly what the talk page is being used for. Blog space. As you mentioned the perceived intentions of Wiki's founders, so shall I. WP:IMP states that one flaw in the current definions of "what is worth writing about" do not "explain the difference between items that are of lasting significance and items that are of fleeting interest", the obvious statement there being that items that are of fleeting interest don't belong in Wikipedia. Your reaction is worth noting, but reactionary people should keep it to themselves; there's been enough of that in this case already. Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't look at the talk page because it doesn't have any bearing on whether we delete the article. The blog section of not is to prevent people from abusing user space and server space. Similarly, if the talk page is a memorial, that has little bearing on the article. I'm not sure what you mean about "the perceived intentions of Wiki's founders", but WP:IMP has been superseeded by other criteria that people are citing properly in this AfD, such as WP:BIO.--Kchase T 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BIO, which is guideline, states that "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated" is a factor for determining their inclusion within Wikipedia. James Kim does appear to qualify, with the Associated Press [1] and CNN [2] reporting about his death. The talk page also shows signs of expansion beyond coverage of his death. —Goh wz 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Incorrect. Perhaps you don't understand what assassination means? Mael-Num 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It says such as assassination. How can we carry on a discussion with someone who won't be rational and honest? (And I do apologize if that sounds like a personal attack. It is not meant that way.)Tragic romance 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, if you're really curious, I did understand, but as Tragic romance mentioned, assasination is an example, the overriding description being "newsworthy events". —Goh wz 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TechTV and CNET do not make someone notable. Indeed, if this were the case, then why was there no article written before his untimely passing? Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Maybe TechTV and CNET don't make someone notable. Maybe they do. But since he was "noted" by virtually every news outlet in every medium, and millions of people the world over are aware of him, he's notable. Answer whole arguments, not just the part you find the weakest. Thanks.Tragic romance 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Mr2001 11:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all the reasons above. Headwes 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, your argument is basically "well, he got a ton of media coverage, but..." which explicitly states that this is in compliance with WP:BIO. "no one had seen the subject as noteworthy until the news media placed so much focus on it." -- that's exactly how we determine what's noteworthy, and now that he's been judged such, we're good to write about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The policy Wikipedia isn't a memorial. is intented to exclude articles that are simply memorials to friends and relatives who are not otherwise notable. The article on James Kim does not fit in this category. James Kim would have been notable whether or not he died, by virtue of his decade of work in the tech media. He became more notable because of the circumstances surrounding him and his family in the last week of his life. Crunch 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia isn't a memorial. also states that "subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered", so while I appreciate your interpreting the guideline's intentions for me, I would beg to differ. James Kim was not notable before he died. There wasn't even a WP:stub for him. I am an avid gamer (for close to 20 years now) and I never heard of him. I have a good friend who is an editor for a major metropolitan newspaper, and because she doesn't saturate herself in the 24 hour news cycle, she was barely aware of the "significance" of the event. It seems a case of television telling people what's important, and the only possible response being slack-jawed assent.Mael-Num 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether someone is included in the personal scope or worldview of Mael-Num is not a yard stick in which to measure Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rugz (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment:He isn't notable for being fondly remembered. (In fact many of us are critical of his choices.) He's notable for the poignant (?) way he died. Perhaps he wasn't notable before he died. But he's notable now.You do make a good point about whether his plight was important enough to capture the coverage it did. But importance is not the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is.Tragic romance 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any person deserves an article in wikipedia if "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)). There were lots of newspaper articles and magazine articles about James Kim. Even if he would be completely unknown before November 2006, he deserves an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urod (talk • contribs) 13:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Define "non-trivial". A newspaper will print nearly every obituary you send to them. That's hardly a valid test of what makes important and lasting encyclopedic subject matter.Mael-Num 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again this individual sidesteps and mischaracterizes the argument. True - a small obituary in a newspaper does not justify inclusion. But this was covered by virtually every news outlet in every medium. Millions of people around the world are aware of him. Further, this individual cites an essay that is labelled as "being kept for historical reasons" and "has fallen out of favor in preference for the 'Notability' guideline" (paraphrased). Tragic romance 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Out of curiousity, is there a Wikipedia guideline you're basing your definition of "noteworthy" on? Do you disagree that the article meets the guidelines in WP:BIO? Moncrief 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since you asked and I'm assuming you're not being disingenuine, condescending, and argumentative as your response clearly indicates, I'll give you a real answer. WP:IMP gives an idea of what is important enough to be noted, and more importantly, it states that the currently written policies and guidelines do not explain the difference between items that are of lasting significance and items that are of fleeting interest, with the clear implication that items that are of fleeting interest have no place in Wikipedia. I'm resting my argument with this. Clearly a great number of emotionally charged, sentimental, and reactionary people have gathered here (in a very short amount of time and in far greater numbers than you will find for other AfDs, which only supports my argument) to "sound off" blog-style on the subject. That sort of thing is great and encouraged...on a blog. Despite the "consensus" reached by the masses drawn here by the lowest common denominator news coverage paid to this article, I hope that cooler and more rational heads prevail, and sort this thing out properly.Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article clearly meets the #1 standard on WP:IMP: An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." Moncrief 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! You managed to betray both my assumption of good faith and yourself as being an argumentative and dishonest respondant with incredible speed and brevity. Your rules-lawyering fails because, despite the boldface used twice above, you managed to blind your eye to the part that reads The criteria do not explain the difference between items that are of lasting significance and items that are of fleeting interest. I won't allow you to just gloss that over. Before you respond with more non-sequitur, please adress exactly why you think that line is there. Or feel free to pretend that my response never happened. Mael-Num 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed out WP:IMP as a rationale for your AfD nomination, and I am merely quoting from it. It is difficult to know what is of fleeting interest and what isn't until some time has passed, so I think Tim D's suggestion just below is a good one. Cheers! Moncrief 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concession accepted, and I agree with both Tim D and yourself. I was unwise to attempt to remove this article while so many people are so emotionally charged. It would make sense to keep the article until there comes a time when we can evaluate the more far-reaching relevance of the story. Mael-Num 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concession? I don't think I'm the one conceding. By the way, if you formally withdraw your AfD nomination above, we can expedite the process. Cheers! Moncrief 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is anyone even trying to use WP:IMP for a basis of arguement? It holds no more weight in this AFD than something I would write in my userspace and then quote. It was replaced with the Notability articles. It's obsolete and IMHO can be ignored. Can you base your comments on Current, recognized guidelines? To use WP:IMP is like grasping at straws since WP:BIO replaces it (along with any other notability guidelines). I hate to say I ignore any opinions but if I were the closing admin, I would wonder why you are debating the article using obsolete guidelines. --22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Answer While you may think yourself clever for implying that I was merely attempting to use WP:IMP, rather than actually doing so in an argument, and through this flimsy implication alone claim that my argument isn't valid...well...you're not that clever, because if I can see through that nonsense, you've done something wrong. More importantly, may I ask why you are picking nits and lawyering rather than addressing the content and spirit of a guideline that is significant enough to the owners, operators, and admins of Wikipedia that they cite it themselves as things to consider when authoring an article? Just honestly curious. Mael-Num 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there is to be a discussion on whether this article should be deleted, I think that it shouldn't happen now. It's almost impossible to separate the notability of the person from the popularity of the event. I say that we should just see how things pan out over the coming months and then revisit the issue later. There's a lot of emotion tangled in here by other editors, but that can't be a reason for keeping or deleting it. -- Tim D 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree with that. Why can't we make a dispassionate rational decision? I don't see much emotion at all here or on the article's talk page. Tragic romance 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not meet WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Also per the essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we do not have to have an article for everything that is in today's newspaper. A lot of similar news stories over a few days does not make this likely to pass the "hundred year test." It is tragic that Mr. Kim died, but hundreds of thousands of people die every year just as tragically, and they do not require Wikipedia article either. We do not create articles for every person killed in a plane crase, or who drowns, or who gets electricuted. He was apparently not notable enough for an encyclopedia article before he got lost and died of exposure, and that death is not of particularly enduring notability. Edison 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment James Kim does meet WP:BIO and only the most liberal and interpretive reading of the WP:BIO could lead one to believe otherwise. Using the rationale for deletion evoked by this nomination and by those who concur with the nomination, the following articles would be just a few which should also be deleted; Aron Ralston, Elizabeth Smart, Nicole Brown Simpson, John Mark Karr, (as well as Jon Benet Ramsey for that matter), Polly Klaas, Scott Peterson, Amber Frey, Laci Peterson, Dennis Rader, Tom and Eileen Lonergan, and many others. I suppose if the television networks ever make a prime-time movie about James Kim's ordeal, it will suddenly justify the existence of this article? If you feel this article should be deleted, please use Wikipedia guidelines and ONLY Wikipedia guidelines as your justification. The rationale for deletion presented here does not conform to those guidelines and would mean countless other articles regarding high-profile individuals who gained notoriety only through their deaths, disappearances, or criminal acts should also be deleted. Blacksun1942 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Extraordinarily well put, Blacksun1942. You said it all right there. This is the strangest candidate for deletion I've seen in three years editing Wikipedia. Moncrief 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Well-known journalistic figure before the tragedy, and his tragic end only makes this article all the more important. Yaf 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per trialsanderrors. Danny Lilithborne 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now It's hard to know if he would have met WP:BIO prior to Thanksgiving. It would have been borderline at best. As it stands he meets WP:BIO now, but still barely. Most of the non-trivial mentions all surround the single event (even if it took nearly 2 weeks for that event to pan out). However, at this point in time I think it's too early to conclusively call this based on policy. Wait 6 months and see how often this page is edited. Wait a year and see if anyone remembers him for anything other than how he died. Wait a year and see if the focus of the article changes from his death to his accomplishments during life; then judge the article based on what it says about his life, not his death. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly well known prior to disappearance; however I'd like to see the article beefed out a little bit to follow the WP:MOSBIO style. Kameron 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep James Kim's facts should be kept. I believe based on the facts of his uncommon affect on the nation and world as a whole regarding the events the WP:BIO rules allow for this listing to remain on Wikipedia. The facts about the affect of the world can be found on all international web sites--Fredchew 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm surprised that James Kim gets a consideration for deletion. What about Kim Hyun-chil? He's much less known, and also didn't have a wiki page until his death. His death is also listed in the current events page while James Kim is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farful (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Anyone who votes for DELETE shouldn't be editing material on Wikipedia in the first place. There are far more less-notable people who have Wiki articles. His life is clearly noteworthy and will probably influence how the state of Oregon polices its roads for the next several decades. --UCLARodent 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by UCLARodent (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep With all due respect, I find this nomination for deletion to be self-evidently absurd in the extreme. The emotional components and memorializing that you cite are not included in the James Kim article, so I am unsure why you cite them as reasons for deletion. James Kim and the events surrounding his disappearance and death had focused media attention and headlines not only nationwide throughout the United States, but throughout the world as well. To suggest this article should be deleted means that articles about Eizabeth Smart or Nicole Brown Simpson should be deleted; neither of them remotely qualified as noteworthy people under Wikipedia guidelines until the media focused on the unique events they were involved in. For a person to be noteworthy that individual does *NOT* have to be noteworthy prior to the circumstances in which the individual garnered media attention, furthermore Wikipedia contains *NO* guidelines regarding an article's deletion or relevance merely because its details make you "nauseous" and finally Wikipedia has *NO* guidelines requiring that an article pertaining to an individual must contain some usefulness regarding lessons to others or survivial skills. None of the reasons you have given regarding this article's potential deletion conform to Wikipedia standards and rules, and until your reasons for deletion conform to those standards, they must necessarily be considered irrelevant. James Kim qualifies as a noteworthy person under WP:BIO guidelines, and his article conforms to those guidelines. Therefore, under the circumstances, and provided that you have so far given no reasons for deletion that are relevant to Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion or deletion, I am bound to recommend this article be kept. Blacksun1942 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the man can be in Wikipedia. After some time the article can be re-written to give the correct attention about his dead and his live. Now it looks like the only thing that there is to say about the man is that he died. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Passes WP:BIO. I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few people left in the world who meet or exceed the WP:BIO guidelines who don't have articles. Therefore, to say that James Kim wasn't notable because he didn't already have an article is a very silly argument. DCEdwards1966 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. --EarthPerson 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article on James Kim is neither a blog or a memorial site based on my understanding of WP:BIO guidelines.
  • Delete/If they ever sort out the basic underlying flaw in Wikinews, transfer article to Wikinews Nomination shows inexperience with general feeling in afds, and may not be very well-reasoned (but jeez, is there a really need to pile on the newbie nominator like an angry mob with a ton of bricks? (WP:BITE) he/she's not even a SPA), but I have a long-standing position on the suitability of articles of short-lived news value such as this. I concur with the nominator's basic argument, and User:Edison's argument. I don't know if Wikinews's licensing problems will ever be sorted out. If they can't be, than Wikinews will always be something of a dud, I fear. Bwithh 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: WP:BIO --Jay Jenkins 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:BIO is a guideline.... This subject is of, at best, borderline notability... I don't see how the claims of "incredible notability" etc. that have been raised in this discussion can be substantiated. Bwithh 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James Kim's notability is firmly established; scroll up and read further examples within this discussion. James Kim meets the WP:BIO guidelines in the same way individuals like Aron Ralston or John Mark Karr do; their notability is just as firmly established. Blacksun1942 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, media coverage (even by major souces) does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability and I don't see the equivalence of Klass, Karr or Ralston. Klass has a foundation and an arts center in her honor. Karr represented a major turn in a culturally significant murder case (supersensationalized by the media, but had long-running ramifications and reverberations for the contemporary moral debate over US culture), and Ralston has authored a book which has been nominated for at least one national book award (Quill Awards 2005). In addition, none of these articles have been subject to afd discussion. If the Kim incident has a substantive impact on a law, or leads to creation of a significant foundation or something, that would increase his notability in my eyes. What I object to is the immediate inclusion of stories simply because they receive news coverage without judging if there is evidence for long term significance or substantive current social impact beyond the news story. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and its a not a news archive (that should be Wikinews's role). Bwithh 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that your reasons for deletion do NOT conform with Wikipedia guidelines. Your comments about whether an individual has a foundation in their name or has written a book and what impact that would have on a person's eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia are completely arbitrary on your part and do not in any way conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Your rationale justifying the inclusion of John Mark Karr (his relevance to some kind of debate over US culture) is extremely subjective and highly debatable at best. Aron Ralston may not be "remembered" years from now, whether he has written a book or not; and if the creation of a foundation or book is some kind of subjective pronouncement of worthiness, you would be naive to think that the James Kim story will not find future outlets in various American media forms. Nevertheless, even if the creation of a "book or foundation" with James Kim's name on it never comes to pass, they would have little if any relevancy to Wikipedia guidelines. Foundation or no, James Kim certainly meets WP:BIO, and his is arguably the most famous wilderness ordeal story in recent American history. Indeed, fame alone *is* enough to warrant inclusion. WP:BIO does not state that an individual must have a lasting impact on law or a foundation named after him. Blacksun1942 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to User:Rugz's lengthy list of minor journalists/TV presenters (and not so minor ones - the first name mentioned is an Emmy Award winner... but Rugz's claim that these names all have "international fame" is really stretching it a bit), this appears to be an application of the Pokemon test... "gotta catch all those minor TV presenters/panellists who have ever been on TechTV/CNET TV " etc. I'll bet most of these have never been subject to afd discussion either. Just because another article exists, doesn't mean that an article in the same general category should. Bwithh 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TechTV was broadcast in Canada, Australia, Russia, Japan. According to Wired, TechTV in its prime reached 43 million households, and had 1.9 million unique visitors monthly to it's website Source: Wired News June 14, 2004 Rugz 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a cable channel can reach 43 million homes, doesn't mean that there are 43 million homes which watch that cable channel. It just means that its part of a cable package of 100s of channels that's available to 43 million homes. So what if Techtv has some viewers in other countries, this does not automatically mean all its presenters and panellists have "international fame" Bwithh 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great point. Let's delete the TechTV page too! Not enough viewers. Rugz 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW doesn't apply - substantial debate has occurred Bwithh 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing debate, just reiterations of the same misinterpretations of policy. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar delete arguments have prevailed in at least one similar case I've acted as nominator of and which was endorsed in review (except those cases didn't involve a person with TechTV exposure which I guess raises his profile amongst Wikipedians). It may be a minority opinion, but it's not a straightforward misinterpretation of policy (actually WP:BIO is not a policy). Bwithh 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW seems to apply here because I see 40+ Keeps and 4 Deletes.... No matter how strongly the people calling for Delete feel, or how much they wish to debate the topic, a clear and overwhelming majority has already been reached. Blacksun1942 20:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW isn't policy nor is it a guideline. It merely cites the official deletion policy page's section on early closure which also states: Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea. Bwithh 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - removing just because it was added after death and media attention is not justifiable. --Ron Williams 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per above --Borisborf 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a good sourced article. There are multiple sources available about this man and he meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO and he has a lot of media attention. He was long notable before his death. Terence Ong 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Man, I normally see such tendentious wikilawyering on behalf of keeping bad articles, not for deleting good ones. Not one of the nominator's arguments hold the slightest bit of water, no matter how many times he repeats them. It got international coverage, for god's sake. Scott Simon even devoted a commentary to discussing the man and his death, which wound up as one of NPR's "Most E-Mailed Stories" [3]. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Mael-Num has nullified his own nomination -- the sheer number of people here who know of James Kim and who are commenting on this AFD proves his notoriety. F00d0g22 07:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed 100%. Rasi2290
  • Keep Highly notable. Hanako 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I only wish my death would come while I was a well-liked employee at anonline media company. Then too would my passing be memorialized by throngs of internet users on wikipedia. Not to insult the late Mr. Kim, but can anyone say with a straight face that but for his death, a wikipedia article on him would have endured? I doubt it. Let's be honest: there is a massive selection bias going on here; the majority of wikipedia editors are probably in the tech community, and thus they're a little more invested/interested in the story - this much should be obvious when someone actually takes the time to chart out his walking path with a google maps graphic. I don't think it speaks well of Wikipedia (in terms of preserving neutrality/non-bias) that just because a member of their own community has passed, there's a rallying to ensure that the general public will never forget their lost colleague. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that screams "memorial". Bottom line, information-seekers 5 years from now aren't going to be saying "shucks, I really wish Wikipedia hadn't deleted that article on James Kim, because I was really looking forward to learning all about him". Ocap8 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why does becoming famous after or as a result of a death mean that a subject isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article? There's even a whole article -- People who became famous only in death -- populated exclusively by such people. By that criterion, that an article is only acceptable if the subject was well known during his or her life, we'd have to delete the articles on Polly Klaas, Chandra Levy, and even Anne Frank and Vincent van Gogh. James Kim was on the cover of People magazine, and saying that only people in the tech community (not that I agree that most Wikipedians are in said community) are interested in this story just isn't accurate. You may find the story unappealing or unimportant, and wish that others shared those sentiments, but the fact is that it was a major story. Wikipedia, like any good encyclopedia, isn't in the business of molding reality to some ideal form, but rather we should be describing reality as it is as NPOV as possible. The fact is that this was a notable story, even though you may wish that it was not and you might personally dislike the media that propelled it forward and dislike the reasons it became a major story. Moncrief 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's my point. Anne Frank and Vincent van Gogh (save Polly Klaas and Chandra Levy; the propriety of those article I'll put aside for a moment) have had some significant contribution to society. The majority of people (and I don't even know who decides on the qualifications for inclusion on that list) on that "List of people who became famous only in death" have notoriety for reasons other than the mere fact they died - their death was notorious because of a resulting change in social policy or notorious because of their association with a bona fide famous person. To address your argument "well what about the Chandra Levy's of the world" I would submit that a victim of violence, especially where the situation surrounding the murder is somewhat notorious, is a lot more intrinsically "worthy" of note than a mere accidental death. The headline for that aricle says it all: "Those on this list have become famous in death to a degree beyond the immediate release of the notification of their death." In my opinion (and of course you're entitled to yours, that's the point of this forum) is that he's not famous in any degree worthy of inclusion in wikipedia beyond "the immediate release of the notification of their death." If you want to pursue the argument that he was famous prior to death, so be it, but you (not you in general) can't conflate the two and make a circular argument that goes something like "ok, he died, nothing really special. but now we're going to highlight his pre-death accomplishments to make his death special." And if you're able to make some argument for inclusion absent of his death, I'd simply ask "where was his article before he died?". Ocap8 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your personal standard for the notability necessary to generate a Wikipedia article seems to be much higher than the Wikipedia consenus and that outlined in WP:BIO, and I suppose you would want to delete the articles of every obscure B-actor, and people like Angelyne and Jessica McClure, who have not necessarily made any "significant contribution" to society but who are known to many people nonetheless. Since Wikipedia is [not paper] and because there is willing free labor to build Wikipedia, and since Wikipedia has become a unique one-stop/first-stop resource for who-knows-how-many users, such people have articles about them, and their articles (and countless others like them), if well-written and factual, do nothing to harm or detract from Wikipedia. If you think James Kim isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article (yes, only in death and only because the media and public attention on his death made him notable, whether the media or Joe Q. Public "should" have given him that attention or not), and you wish not to provide a resource on Wikipedia for people who will turn here and have turned here for information on Kim*, then all I can say is that I sincerely wish you well, as your fight for massive deletions will be an arduous and uphill battle, to say the least. *(If this James Kim article were deleted, which obviously it won't be, I wonder how long it would be before someone new started a new one. Ten minutes?) Moncrief 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would just add explicitly that I never said that fame prior to death was a necessary condition for wikipedia inclusion. And to the extent that there's a huge difference between posthumous recognition of a person's societal contributions (i.e. famous after death) and poshumous recognition merely because of the circumstances surrounding death (i.e. famous because of death), I would reference my above comment. Ocap8 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose I was reacting to this comment -- "Not to insult the late Mr. Kim, but can anyone say with a straight face that but for his death, a wikipedia article on him would have endured?" -- to which I would respond: I'm not sure -- if well-written, my money is on yes -- but it's a moot point. He became notable because of the attention generated upon his disappearance and death. And so what? That's reality. I don't see the need even to justify whether or not he was notable before he died. Personally, I would never have thought to start an article on Kim before he died (nor would I have thought to nominate it for deletion if it was decently written), just as I never would have thought to start an article on, say, Laci Peterson before she died. They both became widely famous only in death. And? So? This fact doesn't trouble me as a Wikipedia editor; it's just the way reality panned out. Moncrief 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Whether he was notable before his death, he has worldwide notability now. [Adding "strong" to your "delete" doesn't improve your argument any.] Tragic romance 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. Just kidding. Keep. Because of the first - very lucid - rebuttal and the lack of any subsequent coherent challenge thereto. eric0000 24:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per above -- Meira Voirdire 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is worthy of being on wikipedia - 68.79.112.173 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very notable. +Johnson 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst others have, I imagine, provided a sufficient basis for our keeping independent of those challenged not unpersuasively by User:Mael-Num, I'm not sure that M-N's contentions have been fully refuted, principally because (to my mind) he properly construes WP:BIO but do so relative to an article that ought not to be a biography but, instead, one apropos of the disappearance incident, which likely is notable in view of its prominence across American and Canadian media outlets (the appropriateness of such prominence, of course, notwithstanding). Where one is notable principally avolitionally and where his/her notability flows entirely from one incident, it is, I think, preferable that we should have an article on the incident (to which here, for example, James Kim would redirect) rather than on such individual, especially where most biographical details commonly understood as encyclopedic (as those composing parts of the instant article) are not particularly relevant to the incident and thus, as regards the genesis of the notability, not particularly notable. Joe 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Um, this is close to the worst deletion nomination I've ever seen. Well written article which makes a comprehensive case for notability. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 09:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the nominator gives a justification for deletion as "Personally, I find the subject extremely distressing. I actually got a little nauseous reading what I felt was morbid overanalysis of a horrifying series of events," you know it's an AfD for the books. (Perhaps, using those guidelines, we should delete The Holocaust too?) The only one comparable in awfulness that I can recall was a 2004 AfD nomination of Holden Caulfield, but when I went to look for it just now, the only remnant I found was "This article was listed for deletion by a new user, probably a sock puppet. It was not a good faith listing, and no interesting or relevant discussion resulted, so I'm not archiving the VfD discussion. Isomorphic 22:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)." Moncrief 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than meets WP:BIO as Blacksun pointed out. On a quasi-related note, a "Media Coverage" and/or a "Public Response" section should be added to the article. RampageouStalk to me 11:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and shorten. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet even a ten-year hence-and-ago test for notability. Sure, plenty of people might be searching for it now, but proliferating pages destined to fade into obscurity just makes editorial monitoring that much more difficult. Pop Secret 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets get an AfD going for Dewitt Finley too, because according to your logic he should be deleted too. Anyway, no offense but I think it's a bit naive to think nobody will remember James Kim in ten years. The event is still "fresh", we have yet to see how it will progress through the media (possibly in the forms of books or movies). That being said, books and movies are not a requirement for inclusion anyway (*ahem* see Dewitt Finley) Blacksun1942 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That "test" for notability is one among many guidelines. It's not a litmus test. Tragic romance 08:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he was a regular contributor to notable television series viewed internationally. -- Zanimum 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. This event made all the major news services and he was involved TechTV and appeared on camera so he was not non notable in his lifetime.--John Lake 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In 5 years (or maybe 90 days) he will be remembered only as "that guy who took a wrong turn and wandered around in the mountains until he froze," right up there with the "three guys currently lost on Mt. Hood with dozens of people looking for them." Do they have articles yet? Kim's only "involvement in a newsworth story" was his getting lost and dying of hypothermia. It must have been a slow news week. He was not "assassinated," so why that even mentioned? There are certainly as many news stories about the 3 lost guys as for Kim. Kim is no more notable than the 600 plus other people who die each year of hypothermia in the U.S. 67.162.79.243 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" don't pertain exclusively to assassination, it says "such as".--John Lake 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that that even has to be explained to some people. Tragic romance 08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original commenter does not seem to realize that there are plenty of Wikipedia articles about people who have died of hypothermia in the wilderness who could certainly be said to be less "notable"; not the least of which is Dewitt Finley Blacksun1942 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Not that it matters but Finley died of starvation, not hypothermia.) Tragic romance 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCheck the history of the Dewitt Finley article. It was created after Kim got lost, perhaps, so it could be cited to justify the Kim article.67.162.79.243 14:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Those articles could (and should!) likewise be deleted. Whatever the notability test might be, it's certainly not so generous as to mean "more notable than other entries in Wikipedia." Pop Secret 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, do they harm Wikipedia, those articles? They appear well-written to me. Are you concerned about a lack of bandwith to support them? I guess I don't understand why they trouble you. If you don't want to read them, don't search for them. Are you concerned that they aren't factual? Moncrief 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The harm to Wikipedia is that they serve as a vandalism honeypot and that they will not receive, by dint of their impending obscurity, the collaborative effort and attention that we use ensure well-written, verifiable articles. Bad articles, even those infrequently read, taint the wikipedia project as a whole and detract from the credibility of even our best articles. Our bandwith may be well-nigh infinite, but our editors are not. Is this the type of article that will be policed five years from now and ten? That Wikipedia is not paper must be understood to include the project's longevity as well as its bandwith. Pop Secret 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has grown exponentially since its founding, so deleting an article based on what could or might happen to articles in the future seems unecessarily pessimistic to me. It's impossible to know which articles users have on their watchlists, and it would be a really arbitrary task to delete articles on the basis of a perceived paucity of editors and what may or may not happen five or ten years from now. But thanks for your response. Moncrief 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I think it was something of a fluke that Kim didn't have an article before his death, and it could use some more info on the way he lived. We could stand to tidy up and slim down the section on how he died, but still, Keep. Matt Gies 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he did but it got redirected [[4]].--John Lake 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article existed, but only as a redirect to a biography on a different man entirely. Of course, this is immaterial to the debate at hand, but interesting nonetheless. Matt Gies 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was very known before his death too --Nolanuss 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blacksun1942 and Zanimum and John Lake --Pixelface 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Blacksun1942 et. al. -Big Smooth 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one argues for deletion of this article, then articles on people such as Terri Schiavo should be deleted too. — Peter McGinley 02:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since his death is already internationally known, (cause of American Media) i say leave it, this is similar with the Anna Svidersky case, in which someones death became a major headline. They are definitely not wiki worthy when alive, but in death they made headlines for whatever reasons, so i guess it's wiki worthy now. —The preceding Spadger comment was added by Chaotaoquan (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep' strong keep, this is nice information to have for people looking about the topic and him. 71.196.154.124 04:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is based on facts and is a current event. Just because someone passes away doesn't qualify an article for deletion. Paddad64 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* And how noteworthy does one have to be? I do notice that there's still an article here on Jessica McClure, what noteworthy accomplishments had she managed to acquire before she fell into that well? While we're on the subject, who the heck were these Donner Party people? Would they merit a wikipedia article if it were not for the circumstances of their journey west? I daresay they would be like other brave pioneers, remembered only in the dusty scrapbooks of their descendants, or possibly in the town's historical society. Human history revolves around the triumphs and yes, the tragedies of ordinary human beings caught up in greater events. Whether or not they were noteworthy before these events has no bearing on whether or not they will be noteworthy in the eyes of history, and as baby jessica and the donner party have, perhaps one day this article will move from the realm of current events into history, and this article help someone who wasn't around to know what happened to him. (sfitzok)
  • Keep. There really isn't a single admin willing to close this stupid nomination? Y'know, if you would redirect one-tenth of the time and effort you waste on bureaucratic nonsense toward actually building an encyclopedia, then Wikipedia versus Britannica wouldn't even be a close comparison. Cribcage 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must Keep The James and Kati Kim story has worldwide prominence and is a top story of 2006.--69.110.15.149 08:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete a great article?Miltonkeynes 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must Keep This article is far too detailed to be deleted. Also, just because James Kim's death had much media coverage, it doesn't mean that was the only reason the creator of this article made it. It is not written in the form of a memorial, or tribute, but rather an encyclopaedia entry. He died, but does that make his article worthy for speedy delete? Ka5hmir 10:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His journalistic efforts should be the main focus of the article, and not his death. The article looks like belongs more in Wikinews than Wikipedia. Silvie rob 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While one can appreciate the sentiments of the pro-delete camp that this issue has perhaps received too much media attention, the combination of Kim's contributions to the literature of technology and his death make this entry appropriate. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Cattriona 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If James Kim made international news and international media (online or otherwise), people deserve to know who he is. Who wants to know about that Korean guitarist (that no-one wants to know about)? Hohohob 11:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Would we be having this argument if he had survived? Probably not. He'd be on here without a word against him. Plenty of TechTV people are on Wikipedia (Leo Laporte (The Screen Savers, Call For Help), Chris Pirillo (Call for Help), etc...) The Chris Pirillo article has less information about its subject than this one. I agree that over time, this article should contain less about his death, and more about his life, though. --Chris 17:04, 16 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kim&oldid=1082403081"