Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dorim Kim - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hayson1991 (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 20 January 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:19, 20 January 2006 by Hayson1991 (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Daniel Dorim Kim

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)
  • 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: 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)
  • 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)