Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/James 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 Mael-Num (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 12 December 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:19, 12 December 2006 by Mael-Num (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 Misplaced Pages. Be that as it may, Misplaced Pages isn't a blog. Misplaced Pages 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)

  • Keep. One could argue that an article was warranted before his disappearance, but sufficient information about the man was not available to those who would write it. If his career was significant enough and he passes WP:BIO, he should stay. There certainly isn't a lack of interest in information about him. For what it's worth, I'd be quicker to keep this article than the one for, say, Michael Jordan's father, which is there pretty much solely because of his untimely death (after passing an AfD). -- Tim D 08:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Let's not muddy the waters. Michael Jordan's father is a separate issue. All the same, as you clearly demonstrate in your response, you take exception to the fact that this similarly unnotable person received a Misplaced Pages entry due in part to popular media attention to the subject. You make the argument that Michael Jordan's father should be deleted because the man was little known outside of his association with one of the best known basketball players of all time. So why shouldn't that exact same logic apply to James Kim, because if I bumped into James Kim (or his father, wife, brother, or son) before or after this event, I would not recognize him at all. Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Article is tightly sourced and provides a biography of a person that has been in the news recently. It doesn't matter if the story disappears from the headlines in five days, this is perfectly within the scope of Misplaced Pages and WP:BIO. ~ trialsanderrors 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't look at the talk page, but to me the article doesn't contain any morbid analysis. It's actually quite well written. I'm not sure what your point is about WP:NOT a blog, since this has plenty of major non-internet media outlets. Similarly, the nom seems to be incorrect about WP:NOT a memorial, as that section is really intended to prevent family members from creating vanity pages about dead relatives or lists of 9/11 or Iraq victims or such. The real concern, as usual, is notability. WP:BIO used to have some line about treating coverage of one day's events as only one instance of media coverage, but I've got a sense that the fact this ordeal got stretched out over several days would provide just the loophole needed to keep the article. Excluding that consideration, which seems to be moot, he clearly meets WP:BIO.--Kchase T 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment If you didn't look at the talk page, which is what my comment was addressing in part, then perhaps you should try to read it before attempting a rebuttal. If you had, then you might understand my statement about WP:NOT a blog (i.e. that people are gathering on the talk page do exactly what bloggers do on pages dedicated to that pasttime: chat and exchange opinions). Your opinion based on the intentions behind the creation of WP:NOT a memorial are moot. This isn't a memorial. Light a candle; this isn't the place for people to, again, log in and commiserate which is exactly what the talk page is being used for. Blog space. As you mentioned the perceived intentions of Wiki's founders, so shall I. WP:IMP states that one flaw in the current definions of "what is worth writing about" do not "explain the difference between items that are of lasting significance and items that are of fleeting interest", the obvious statement there being that items that are of fleeting interest don't belong in Misplaced Pages. Your reaction is worth noting, but reactionary people should keep it to themselves; there's been enough of that in this case already. Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:BIO, which is guideline, states that "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated" is a factor for determining their inclusion within Misplaced Pages. James Kim does appear to qualify, with the Associated Press and CNN reporting about his death. The talk page also shows signs of expansion beyond coverage of his death. —Goh wz 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Incorrect. Perhaps you don't understand what assassination means? Mael-Num 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep --Mr2001 11:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For all the reasons above. Headwes 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep, The policy Misplaced Pages 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)
Comment: Misplaced Pages 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)
Comment: Out of curiousity, is there a Misplaced Pages 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)
Comment: Since you asked and I'm assuming you're not being disingenuine, condescending, and argumentative as your response clearly indicates, I'll give you a real answer. WP:IMP gives an idea of what is important enough to be noted, and more importantly, it states that the currently written policies and guidelines do not explain the difference between items that are of lasting significance and items that are of fleeting interest, with the clear implication that items that are of fleeting interest have no place in Misplaced Pages. I'm resting my argument with this. Clearly a great number of emotionally charged, sentimental, and reactionary people have gathered here (in a very short amount of time and in far greater numbers than you will find for other AfDs, which only supports my argument) to "sound off" blog-style on the subject. That sort of thing is great and encouraged...on a blog. Despite the "consensus" reached by the masses drawn here by the lowest common denominator news coverage paid to this article, I hope that cooler and more rational heads prevail, and sort this thing out properly.Mael-Num 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The article clearly meets the #1 standard on WP:IMP: An article is "important" enough to be included in Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
  • Delete He does not meet WP:BIO. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial site. Also per the essay, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • Strong keep Well-known journalistic figure before the tragedy, and his tragic end only makes this article all the more important. Yaf 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Categories: