Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dorim Kim: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:49, 20 January 2006 editItake (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,217 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:01, 15 June 2024 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors372,356 editsm Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots. 
(49 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was
'''Delete''' --] <sup>]</sup> 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{afdnewbies}}
'''This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected ] of {{user|Jason Gastrich}}, {{User|Wiggins2}}. See his : they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.'''
----
As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see ]. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
----

*'''Rebuttal''': Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted ''only'' because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Misplaced Pages. --] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
**Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per ] it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. ]] 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

----
Non-notable person. Non-notable person.


Line 5: Line 22:


*'''Delete'''. Agreed. Nothing in the article makes this person stand out. - ] 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Agreed. Nothing in the article makes this person stand out. - ] 06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Reads like an abbreviated resumé rather than a description of a notable person. ] 07:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Reads like an abbreviated resumé rather than a description of a notable person. ] 07:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and expand. Notable enough. ] 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' and expand. Notable enough. ] 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The awards from Korea catch the eye as possible evidence that someone outside his pocket of reality of people reading each others' books about Jesus has paid attention to him, but then it doesn't say what they were for or even prove that they happened, so I remain unconvinced. --] <small>]</small> 09:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. The awards from Korea catch the eye as possible evidence that someone outside his pocket of reality of people reading each others' books about Jesus has paid attention to him, but then it doesn't say what they were for or even prove that they happened, so I remain unconvinced. --] <small>]</small> 09:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 20: Line 37:
::Said the man who has been soliciting keep votes - but of course, it's not "ballot stuffing" is it? For the record, Brokenfrog, I ''have'' read the article and find his claims tenuous. This is a private for-profit technical training school of unknown enrollment numbers, the university of which he is supposedly a board member appears not to exist, his Ed. D comes from an unaccredited university (and is reportedly honorary anyway) - the whole thing stinks of rotting fish. Add to that the evidence of vote-packing by the article's creator and sole editor and the fact that the same person created a whole bunch of articles in a short period on people who had all managed to escape the world's notice despite the vigortous claims to notability now expressed, all of whom are associated with a single unaccredited university - now ''that'' calls into question good faith. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ::Said the man who has been soliciting keep votes - but of course, it's not "ballot stuffing" is it? For the record, Brokenfrog, I ''have'' read the article and find his claims tenuous. This is a private for-profit technical training school of unknown enrollment numbers, the university of which he is supposedly a board member appears not to exist, his Ed. D comes from an unaccredited university (and is reportedly honorary anyway) - the whole thing stinks of rotting fish. Add to that the evidence of vote-packing by the article's creator and sole editor and the fact that the same person created a whole bunch of articles in a short period on people who had all managed to escape the world's notice despite the vigortous claims to notability now expressed, all of whom are associated with a single unaccredited university - now ''that'' calls into question good faith. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Nothing notable. Awards need citation. ] 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Nothing notable. Awards need citation. ] 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Keep'''</strike>. According to the DoE, Kim's institution (ACMT) is nationally accredited (search ). <strike>As such, he seems like a keep</strike>, though the awards section should be cleared if it can't be verified. -] 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Keep'''</s>. According to the DoE, Kim's institution (ACMT) is nationally accredited (search ). <s>As such, he seems like a keep</s>, though the awards section should be cleared if it can't be verified. -] 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
:Although some is written in Korean, his awards are written in English . --] 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) :Although some is written in Korean, his awards are written in English . --] 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
::That doesn't do it for me, attribution-wise. Looking beyond the obvious bias problem with using an individual's personal website as a gague for verifiability, the list doesn't even say which specific awards he's won. For all we know, they could be bowling trophies. -] 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) ::That doesn't do it for me, attribution-wise. Looking beyond the obvious bias problem with using an individual's personal website as a gague for verifiability, the list doesn't even say which specific awards he's won. For all we know, they could be bowling trophies. -] 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 40: Line 57:
*'''Keep''' Subject is probably not very notable, but the article can still be of use if kept NPOV. For me, limited notability doesn't not automatically warrant deletion. ··· ] · ] ··· 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Subject is probably not very notable, but the article can still be of use if kept NPOV. For me, limited notability doesn't not automatically warrant deletion. ··· ] · ] ··· 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep,''' just because this is beginning to look like a vendetta more than an attempt at cleaning the Wiki. ] 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep,''' just because this is beginning to look like a vendetta more than an attempt at cleaning the Wiki. ] 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Per Rogue 9. --] 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Keep'''. Per Rogue 9. --] 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
**'''Abstain'''. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --] 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' Why does everyone seem to be picking on the "intellectual" articles? The man seems quite important and has won awards. There seems to be feud going on here about which I am not aware, and I reckon some people are looking to have it deleted solely because of that. - 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>] *'''Strong keep''' Why does everyone seem to be picking on the "intellectual" articles? The man seems quite important and has won awards. There seems to be feud going on here about which I am not aware, and I reckon some people are looking to have it deleted solely because of that. - 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>]</sup>
:'''Comment''':What award has he won? You don't know? Neither does anybody else. -] 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :'''Comment''':What award has he won? You don't know? Neither does anybody else. -] 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' And expand aswell. The article is abit small, but the man in question is noteworthy. What have you deletionist ever amounted to? Headed any instutions, won any awards? Didn't think so.] 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' And expand aswell. The article is abit small, but the man in question is noteworthy. What have you deletionist ever amounted to? Headed any instutions, won any awards? Didn't think so.] 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 62: Line 80:
::::::::'''Comment''': Can you please cite an example of a WP policy or guideline supporting your claim? The example I cited states that when using information from a personal website, it is necessary to "...proceed with great caution and...avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial..." Mr. Kim's personal website is the sole source, and the information it purports to verify is plainly controversial, as evinced by this AFD. -] 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::'''Comment''': Can you please cite an example of a WP policy or guideline supporting your claim? The example I cited states that when using information from a personal website, it is necessary to "...proceed with great caution and...avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial..." Mr. Kim's personal website is the sole source, and the information it purports to verify is plainly controversial, as evinced by this AFD. -] 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Your WP policy link is sufficient enough. The page is controversial because the guy who put these pages up for deletion doesn't like the school. Not because the page lacks information. Now we've got two sources, his personal page and another page. We've even got pictures. There's enough proof, if you want this deleted you better start trying to prove that all this information is indeed false. ] 18:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::: Your WP policy link is sufficient enough. The page is controversial because the guy who put these pages up for deletion doesn't like the school. Not because the page lacks information. Now we've got two sources, his personal page and another page. We've even got pictures. There's enough proof, if you want this deleted you better start trying to prove that all this information is indeed false. ] 18:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::'''Comment''' Untrue. Another source for this information is 's site. There is probably more information in the Korean-speaking world, although I don't know the language. - 17:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>] :::::::::'''Comment''' Untrue. Another source for this information is 's site. There is probably more information in the Korean-speaking world, although I don't know the language. - 17:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ] <sup>]</sup>
:::::::::'''Comment''':The ACMT site doesn't qualify as an independent source, since the ACMT site is also owned and operate by Mr. Kim. We need something like an official government list of honorees, or a newspaper article covering the ceremony. -] 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :::::::::'''Comment''':The ACMT site doesn't qualify as an independent source, since the ACMT site is also owned and operate by Mr. Kim. We need something like an official government list of honorees, or a newspaper article covering the ceremony. -] 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::] and ] are you this trusting of source material for all the articles you edit? Or is it just the Christian ones? You accuse those of us that think these are poor sources of POV and yet you seem blind to the fact that many of the claims in the article are not easily verifiable according to wikipedia research standards. The rationale that other articles in wikipedia use similar poor standards of verification is not valid since in those cases they too should not use such sources. ] ] 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::] and ] are you this trusting of source material for all the articles you edit? Or is it just the Christian ones? You accuse those of us that think these are poor sources of POV and yet you seem blind to the fact that many of the claims in the article are not easily verifiable according to wikipedia research standards. The rationale that other articles in wikipedia use similar poor standards of verification is not valid since in those cases they too should not use such sources. ] ] 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 69: Line 87:
:::::::::::'''Comment''': If you look at my contribution history, you'll see that when the verifiability of a fact is questioned, I take steps to verify it. If it's verifiable (as with ], to cite one example), I add the citations and confirm it. If it's not (as with this article), I note that fact as well. You seem to be remarkably quick to assume bad faith on the part of people who disagree with you. -] 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :::::::::::'''Comment''': If you look at my contribution history, you'll see that when the verifiability of a fact is questioned, I take steps to verify it. If it's verifiable (as with ], to cite one example), I add the citations and confirm it. If it's not (as with this article), I note that fact as well. You seem to be remarkably quick to assume bad faith on the part of people who disagree with you. -] 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Then NPOV tag it Daycd. And if you want to continue this discussion, come up with a good reason for deletion. "Unnotable" is not a valid argument when we are talking about a guy who has recevied awards from the major of seoul. I'm quick to assume bad faith in a situation like this, where people want articles deleted for no good reason at all. ] 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) :::::::::::::: Then NPOV tag it Daycd. And if you want to continue this discussion, come up with a good reason for deletion. "Unnotable" is not a valid argument when we are talking about a guy who has recevied awards from the major of seoul. I'm quick to assume bad faith in a situation like this, where people want articles deleted for no good reason at all. ] 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::But my argument was "''notability is not verifiable''". And that is still the case. ] ] 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: But it is verified. The sites verified it, and the primary source was a personal site. It was backed up with other sites, including pictures. ] 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::'''Comment''': The pictures are from the same personal site, so they don't count as an extra reference. They're also suspect because we haven't yet been able to determine exactly what's going on in the photos (since the descriptions are in a foreign language no-one here can read). -] 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::'''Comment''': It's a valid argument if the awards in question do not meet the encyclopedia's standards for verifiability. His position as the head of ACMT is a much stronger branch to hang a case on, if you're inclined to keep, since it's easily verified and documented.-] 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: With the ACMT, no its not a valid argument. And is pictures not enough to verify those claims. What exactly are the standards? ] 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::'''Comment''': The pictures might or might not help. I've got a request for translation of the captions up on the RFT page, and I dropped a note on the talk page of ], who voted in this AFD and self-identifies as a native speaker of Korean. If the caption lists which award is being given, that'd be a starting point toward finding a citable print source. If they say something like "receiving award from mayor" and we can identify the mayor from an outside photo, I'd probably also count that as partial confirmation. As they are right now, they're just pictures of a guy handing a folder to another guy. We'll have to wait and see.-] 20:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: I was right, and you were wrong. Are we going to see a vote change? ] 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::'''Comment''': Not until I can track down which award it is, and why/how often it's given. Knowing that it's from the Ministry of Trade and Industry is a good start, though.-] 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' With a '''weak keep'''. I don't know enough about this guy to say one way or the other whether or not he's notable in his own field. But given that the article is truthful, no reason to delete.] 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' With a '''weak keep'''. I don't know enough about this guy to say one way or the other whether or not he's notable in his own field. But given that the article is truthful, no reason to delete.] 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' I see no reason to delete this article. --] 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' I see no reason to delete this article. --] 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': If anyone in this thread can read Korean, can you please translate the following phrases?: "상공장관 표창" and "서울시장표창장수여식". Those are picture captions to several photos in his web site, which might be Mr. Kim receiving awards. Google's translation service lists them as "Skies minister ticket window" and "Seoul market ticket window market presentation ceremony", respectively, and as a wild guess I think something's getting lost in machine translation. There's also a picture of him receiving a "UN Award", but the res isn't high enough to read the lettering on the certificate.-] 18:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''': If anyone in this thread can read Korean, can you please translate the following phrases?: "상공장관 표창" and "서울시장표창장수여식". Those are picture captions to several photos in his web site, which might be Mr. Kim receiving awards. Google's translation service lists them as "Skies minister ticket window" and "Seoul market ticket window market presentation ceremony", respectively, and as a wild guess I think something's getting lost in machine translation. There's also a picture of him receiving a "UN Award", but the res isn't high enough to read the lettering on the certificate.-] 18:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*: 상공 장관 표창 = Medal of Honor, awarded by the Ministry of Trade and Industry
*: 서울 시장 표창장 수여식 = Ceremony Awarding Medal of Honor, awarded by the Mayor of Seoul
*: 표창, which I translated as ''Medal of Honor'', is up to challenge. It's just a korean BS way of saying "award, one of those special ones, not those crappy ones".
*: --] 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' Notable and should be included on wikipedia. ] 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Notable and should be included on wikipedia. ] 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' doesnt pass WP:BIO standards and his awards are only verified by the recipient. &nbsp;]]] 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' doesnt pass WP:BIO standards and his awards are only verified by the recipient. &nbsp;]]] 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' notability is not verifiable. ] ] 19:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' notability is not verifiable. ] ] 19:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''--] 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into the institution's article, and '''stop''' using AfD discussions to argue with other editors. --] (]) 22:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''weak keep''' because article is a part of an article series, but quite short and not too informative. ] 23:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Useless slop. ] 02:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Weak keep'''. Unfortunately, the awards that '''might''' make him notable are Korean, and the external link that might explain them is in ]. But IMO foreign language links and references '''do count as verifiability'''. I note that there is no version of this article in Korean Misplaced Pages, or at least no interwiki link to it if there is (it's hard to tell for non-roman-alphabet languages). My suggestion is for someone who speaks Korean to provide one, and then assuming that this article stayed on Korean Misplaced Pages for a few weeks without deletion, I would change my vote to an unqualified ''keep''. While this is happening, IMO we should keep the article, with a tag questioning the subject's notability, and discuss it on its talk page. ] 23:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''ATTENTION'''
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
"Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Misplaced Pages. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --] 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"
----
::Hello,

::I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.

::Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.

::By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Misplaced Pages, please see our site!

::Sincerely,

::Jason Gastrich


::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
----
:: Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. ] 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:::"Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. He's trying to influence the vote with his POV. ] 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: So who recevied the money then? Noone, its a call to participate in this discussion and given the amount of people coming here ranting about their POV against this article, it was only fair that he gave the christian community a notice. ] 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:Keep notable enough --] 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' ] 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' he doesn't seem to ''actually'' have done anything significant. --] 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' non-notable. --] 20:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Fails ]. ] 20:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Delete with prefernce to merge'''. I feel bad for turning my back on my inclusionist ways, but this article is un notable & small. Ahh well.... '''Further Note''': I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... ] 04:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
*'''Delete''' per nom. ] ] 04:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The lead award is for exercising more. http://www.presidentschallenge.org/earn_awards/awards_available.aspx --] 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with wherever he works. --] 05:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Sarek. ] <small>]</small> 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' A president of a non-degree tech school isn't notable, there must be hundreds of these in every state/provence!!! Next we'll have lists of high school principals, which actually are more notable than this guy, but not notable enough to be wikified. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

Latest revision as of 23:01, 15 June 2024

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 of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Dorim Kim

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Misplaced Pages. --Jason Gastrich 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. Sycthos 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable person.

I agree with you. --Jason Gastrich 21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Said the man who has been soliciting keep votes - but of course, it's not "ballot stuffing" is it? For the record, Brokenfrog, I have read the article and find his claims tenuous. This is a private for-profit technical training school of unknown enrollment numbers, the university of which he is supposedly a board member appears not to exist, his Ed. D comes from an unaccredited university (and is reportedly honorary anyway) - the whole thing stinks of rotting fish. Add to that the evidence of vote-packing by the article's creator and sole editor and the fact that the same person created a whole bunch of articles in a short period on people who had all managed to escape the world's notice despite the vigortous claims to notability now expressed, all of whom are associated with a single unaccredited university - now that calls into question good faith. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Although some is written in Korean, his awards are written in English . --Jason Gastrich 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't do it for me, attribution-wise. Looking beyond the obvious bias problem with using an individual's personal website as a gague for verifiability, the list doesn't even say which specific awards he's won. For all we know, they could be bowling trophies. -Colin Kimbrell 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a university. It doesn't even claim to be one. ACMT accreditation details: Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology, Occupational Education (NDCS) - Private nondegree-granting institutions that are predominately organized to educate students for trade, occupational, or technical careers - in other words, it's an occupational training school which trains NMR techs (something whihc is done on the job over here). These are two-year non-degree courses, and there is no indication of numbers. It is fair to be sceptical of an instution whose principal claims an Ed. D which turns out to come from an unaccredited university - and which is, in any case, reportedly honorary. The Seoul University of Theology and Seminary has, thus far, managed to escape the attentions of Google, a feat for which I commend is, as it must aid the necessary peace and tranquility of the place. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 22:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The federal accreditation listing says that it has 436 students, or around 200 in a typical graduating class. It's not a four-year degree program, but it does have admissions standards: a requirement for a high school diploma or GED for all programs, and additional certification or outside course credit requirements for specific programs (such as R.N. certification or 30 semesters' worth of college-level credits in natural sciences). Also, US Rep Maxine Waters accused them of deceptive business practices in sworn testimony in 2005. Given that last bit, I'm unsure how I feel, and am changing my vote to Neutral.-Colin Kimbrell 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, merge into institution article if he's really worth mentioning, otherwise delete...not notable enough for a dedicated article. bcatt 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This personal attack is unwarranted. Furthermore, Louisiana Baptist University isn't a diploma mill, they gave him an honorary degree (one of his many degrees), and he his notable for a variety of things (e.g. being president of a university, his awards, etc.). --Jason Gastrich 07:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Watching Gastrich complain about personal attacks is always problematic, but then, one would be hard-pressed to find a more flagrant hypocrite than Jason Gastrich. Someone as notable as Steve Levicoff (whose comments Gastrich tried so very hard to ignore) declared LBU to be a diploma mill twice in Usenet and once in a published book. Gastrich may whimper and whine about that, because he's sunk so much of his emotional capital into the school, but that's his problem. - WarriorScribe 08:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh sure. Levicoff admits he hasn't looked at the school in 11 years. Now there's a good source. JK.--Jason Gastrich 08:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Leaving aside the badinage for a moment, how many people do you know who run bona-fide educational instiututions whose major credentials are honorary degrees? He claims on the websote to have a doctorate in education, but doesn't actually go as far as mentioning that it's an honorary doctorate (let alone one from an unaccredited institution). Doesn't that raise some questions in your mind? That was rhetorical, by the way. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the validity of the educational institution in question on another page. You're an admin, learn to be one and stick to that discussion instead of making pointless insinuations here. Itake 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is probably not very notable, but the article can still be of use if kept NPOV. For me, limited notability doesn't not automatically warrant deletion. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, just because this is beginning to look like a vendetta more than an attempt at cleaning the Wiki. Rogue 9 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Rogue 9. --StuffOfInterest 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain. As soon as this started turning into a Christian vs. everyone else debate I lost interest. Unfortunately, many of those voting keep are claiming that everyone else is anti-Christian. This wasn't so, but if it is repeated enough it may become truth. --StuffOfInterest 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Why does everyone seem to be picking on the "intellectual" articles? The man seems quite important and has won awards. There seems to be feud going on here about which I am not aware, and I reckon some people are looking to have it deleted solely because of that. - 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini
Comment:What award has he won? You don't know? Neither does anybody else. -Colin Kimbrell 14:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep And expand aswell. The article is abit small, but the man in question is noteworthy. What have you deletionist ever amounted to? Headed any instutions, won any awards? Didn't think so.Itake 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: WP:NPA -Colin Kimbrell 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Award from Korea's Prime Minister (1978)

Award from Korea's Commercial Minister (1977) Award from Seoul, South Korea's Mayor (1976)" <- These awards perhaps? Did you even READ the article before you jumped on the delete bandwagon? Itake 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations requested, not provided. Yes I did. Unnamed awards without citations? I got dozens of them :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
"http://www.dorimkim.com/cgi_bin/main.cgi?board=about". Obviously you did not. Try and some research before you post. Itake 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources. The information on Mr. Kim's website is so vague as to be unusable, and there are no independent online sources for the information. If you have another citation to offer, please provide it; otherwise, we have no choice but to continue to treat this information as unverifiable. -Colin Kimbrell 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you prove it wrong? No. Thousands of wikipedia articles are built using info primarily for personal sites. I don't see you rushing to delete them. Again, I suspect this is purely POV against christianity on your part. The site is a good enough source. Itake 16:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm generally inclined to cut some slack on unverified information, as it's often verifiable but unsourced due to laziness on the part of the writer. The mention in this article, however, doesn't even include the name of the award being awarded. Without any context whatsoever, the information is of no value. As for the POV allegation, you're welcome to think what you want, but a POV-pusher who votes Neutral about deleting the article he's supposedly persecuting isn't doing a very effective job of pushing his POV, is he? -Colin Kimbrell 16:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Also, in reference to your "Can you prove it wrong?" challenge, you may want to (re)read WP:V#When_adding_information. The very first sentence of that policy states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit.".-Colin Kimbrell 16:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, and he gave evidence with the first edit. If you don't LIKE that evidence, then thats too bad. If you are accusing the dude who made that page of being a liar, you need to prove that he is infact a liar. Otherwise I have no reason to listen to your rants anymore then his. Itake 16:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The evidence cited does not qualify as sufficient evidence under Misplaced Pages policy, as clearly stated in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources. -Colin Kimbrell 16:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it does qualify as sufficient evidence. The website is the primary source of information for article. Itake 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Then the article is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Can you please cite an example of a WP policy or guideline supporting your claim? The example I cited states that when using information from a personal website, it is necessary to "...proceed with great caution and...avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial..." Mr. Kim's personal website is the sole source, and the information it purports to verify is plainly controversial, as evinced by this AFD. -Colin Kimbrell 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Your WP policy link is sufficient enough. The page is controversial because the guy who put these pages up for deletion doesn't like the school. Not because the page lacks information. Now we've got two sources, his personal page and another page. We've even got pictures. There's enough proof, if you want this deleted you better start trying to prove that all this information is indeed false. Itake 18:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Untrue. Another source for this information is the ACMT's site. There is probably more information in the Korean-speaking world, although I don't know the language. - 17:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini
Comment:The ACMT site doesn't qualify as an independent source, since the ACMT site is also owned and operate by Mr. Kim. We need something like an official government list of honorees, or a newspaper article covering the ceremony. -Colin Kimbrell 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Greatgavini and Itake are you this trusting of source material for all the articles you edit? Or is it just the Christian ones? You accuse those of us that think these are poor sources of POV and yet you seem blind to the fact that many of the claims in the article are not easily verifiable according to wikipedia research standards. The rationale that other articles in wikipedia use similar poor standards of verification is not valid since in those cases they too should not use such sources. David D. (Talk) 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but it does strenghten the POV claim because I don't see you crawling all over those articles. While the articles related to this school all got up for deletion a few moments after they were created. Again, alot of evidence proving that this article is right has been presented yet you can't amount to anything but unvalidated claims that all these sites must be lying. Itake 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying the article is lying. I am saying it is written from a POV perspective and is as yet, not verifiable. Plus he seems relatively unnotable from a religious perspective. These are viable reason to delete. You may disagree, thats fine, and thats why we have AfD. Also it is true i was not crawling all over the artcile, who was? Is that a reason i cannot vote in AfD? I was however involved in the discussion on the LBU page that spawned all these unnotable alumni pages. At the LBU talk page there is a circular argument being presented that justifies the inclusion of people as notable alumni based on the fact they have a page in wikipedia. Yet that page was created by the very person making the argument. This is bad faith editing and these article deserve to be judged by the community. Personally i find them remarkably unnotable. David D. (Talk) 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If you look at my contribution history, you'll see that when the verifiability of a fact is questioned, I take steps to verify it. If it's verifiable (as with Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/BEML, to cite one example), I add the citations and confirm it. If it's not (as with this article), I note that fact as well. You seem to be remarkably quick to assume bad faith on the part of people who disagree with you. -Colin Kimbrell 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Then NPOV tag it Daycd. And if you want to continue this discussion, come up with a good reason for deletion. "Unnotable" is not a valid argument when we are talking about a guy who has recevied awards from the major of seoul. I'm quick to assume bad faith in a situation like this, where people want articles deleted for no good reason at all. Itake 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
But my argument was "notability is not verifiable". And that is still the case. David D. (Talk) 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
But it is verified. The sites verified it, and the primary source was a personal site. It was backed up with other sites, including pictures. Itake 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The pictures are from the same personal site, so they don't count as an extra reference. They're also suspect because we haven't yet been able to determine exactly what's going on in the photos (since the descriptions are in a foreign language no-one here can read). -Colin Kimbrell 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It's a valid argument if the awards in question do not meet the encyclopedia's standards for verifiability. His position as the head of ACMT is a much stronger branch to hang a case on, if you're inclined to keep, since it's easily verified and documented.-Colin Kimbrell 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
With the ACMT, no its not a valid argument. And is pictures not enough to verify those claims. What exactly are the standards? Itake 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The pictures might or might not help. I've got a request for translation of the captions up on the RFT page, and I dropped a note on the talk page of User:Yonghokim, who voted in this AFD and self-identifies as a native speaker of Korean. If the caption lists which award is being given, that'd be a starting point toward finding a citable print source. If they say something like "receiving award from mayor" and we can identify the mayor from an outside photo, I'd probably also count that as partial confirmation. As they are right now, they're just pictures of a guy handing a folder to another guy. We'll have to wait and see.-Colin Kimbrell 20:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I was right, and you were wrong. Are we going to see a vote change? Itake 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Not until I can track down which award it is, and why/how often it's given. Knowing that it's from the Ministry of Trade and Industry is a good start, though.-Colin Kimbrell 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With a weak keep. I don't know enough about this guy to say one way or the other whether or not he's notable in his own field. But given that the article is truthful, no reason to delete.Wynler 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this article. --Shanedidona 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If anyone in this thread can read Korean, can you please translate the following phrases?: "상공장관 표창" and "서울시장표창장수여식". Those are picture captions to several photos in his web site, which might be Mr. Kim receiving awards. Google's translation service lists them as "Skies minister ticket window" and "Seoul market ticket window market presentation ceremony", respectively, and as a wild guess I think something's getting lost in machine translation. There's also a picture of him receiving a "UN Award", but the res isn't high enough to read the lettering on the certificate.-Colin Kimbrell 18:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    상공 장관 표창 = Medal of Honor, awarded by the Ministry of Trade and Industry
    서울 시장 표창장 수여식 = Ceremony Awarding Medal of Honor, awarded by the Mayor of Seoul
    표창, which I translated as Medal of Honor, is up to challenge. It's just a korean BS way of saying "award, one of those special ones, not those crappy ones".
    --Yonghokim 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Unfortunately, the awards that might make him notable are Korean, and the external link that might explain them is in Korean. But IMO foreign language links and references do count as verifiability. I note that there is no version of this article in Korean Misplaced Pages, or at least no interwiki link to it if there is (it's hard to tell for non-roman-alphabet languages). My suggestion is for someone who speaks Korean to provide one, and then assuming that this article stayed on Korean Misplaced Pages for a few weeks without deletion, I would change my vote to an unqualified keep. While this is happening, IMO we should keep the article, with a tag questioning the subject's notability, and discuss it on its talk page. Andrewa 23:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Misplaced Pages. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Misplaced Pages, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
"Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. He's trying to influence the vote with his POV. Arbustoo 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
So who recevied the money then? Noone, its a call to participate in this discussion and given the amount of people coming here ranting about their POV against this article, it was only fair that he gave the christian community a notice. Itake 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable enough --Vizcarra 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
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.