Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azia 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 delete per

Azia Kim

Azia Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Insufficiently notable. (She's basically fallen off the radar.)[1] Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep All criteria for notability met or meetable. Lack of current news coverage is not a valid reason to delete. Wl219 15:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BLP1E. Too minor an incident to merit a mention in main Stanford article. (Lots of colleges have various hangers-on, not that many have actual fraud issues, but only recently has "campus security" meant that any incident is treated as major.) --Dhartung | Talk 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete- Wikipedia is not news, do we have any lasting coverage, or even any significant mentions in national/international press? J Milburn 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perfect example of
  WP:BLP1E. She was noted in the media, but she is not notable by Wikipedia standards. MarkinBoston 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I fail to see any historic notability for this prank Corpx 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't see any permanent interest in this case, although it is amusing as a bit of news. --Agamemnon2 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. Agree with
  WP:BLP1E guidelines, rather than be deleted outright. Konekoniku 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, with no prejudice against redirecting to an article on the event. The event is clearly notable and should have an article. At first glance, this seems the most appropriate place for such an article.
  Sarcasticidealist 22:13, 3 September 2007 (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.