Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kim

Add links
Source: 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

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 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
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
]
Comment Let's not muddy the waters.
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
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]
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
    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
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: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]
  • Keep Same as most of the above, also relevant in many different categorical contexts. dr.ef.tymac 17:52, 12 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
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]
  • 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
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 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
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]
  • Speedy Keep, and especially so on account of
    WP:SNOW - no pun intended. --Dennisthe2 23:46, 12 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
]
Then lets get an AfD going for
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]
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]
  • Endorse closure per
    talk 00:47, 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"