Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. And whoever said this would be chore to wade through was right. However, the case does appear to have been made that Kim does pass WP:BIO, however closely, through the additional sources that have been found. Clearly, though, a no consensus close means that the article may be subject to renomination in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Kenneth K. Kim

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I declined the speedy deletion of this page. It is a pretty borderline case in regards to spam, but the main issue in my mind is notability. While the subject is clearly a successful member of their field, I can't see much evidence that they have been covered by any reliable sources. At this point I would vote be delete Neutral pending review of Korean language sources Keep Dr. Kim has been the subject of non trivial coverage in a variety of reliable sources and meets WP:N. -- Leivick (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: The page is now at Kenneth K. Kim (moved subsequent to the reverted NAC). Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr Kim has had numerous articles in the Korean newspapers done on him...
 * Korean Daily News, May 20, 2010
 * there were two other ones i dont know what they are i'll call my parents to find out but he's seriously great he's been operating on older patients for free to help them with a condition called ptosis which is droopiness or something in the eyes and is very common among us asians hes been doing really great things and i wanted more positive korean american role models please please don't get rid of his article its really important to me and my family to have more people like him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.89.126 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The above user states on her talk page "i am working in the same school organization that is trying to make more pages for role models from korean american descent to help our community create more positive role models." Such an attitude may not be consistent with the principles of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment The above user is an anonymous IP editor who did not write the original article, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by suggesting... whatever it is that you're suggesting. I'm not sure I understand what "attitude" you are referring to -- trying to create articles about prominent Korean-Americans doesn't exactly seem in violation of Wikipedia cornerstones, no. Perhaps you could explain or elaborate how you think this person who is attempting to supply sourcing for the article is violating Wikipedia principles. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please. If you look up the IP's contrib record and compare it with that of User:People bios, it is pretty obvious that they are the same person. We can file an SPI report if you like, to make sure. Nsk92 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, this edit confirms conclusively that they are the same person. Nsk92 (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment: I think this thing just got really confused. The above comments from the IP Address were from my roommate. She didn't vote, she doesn't know how to do anything on html (which is why i think she was asking for help in putting up the sources), and she was a little over excited about Dr. Kim's article, which I had shown to her before I left for work that day. She bugged me all day about this Afd, but if you noticed, she didn't even vote. she isn't really sure about how to do these things, and as far as i know, she hasn't been back on since. i already told her to stay off because she didn't understand the politics of wikipedia and she's wayyyyy too emotional right now to get involved in any debate regarding this topic or anything similar. i told her she's just make things worse so she's been trying to stay off.People bios (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I see nothing conclusively confirmed in that diff (in fact it jives perfectly well with things People bios has said to me and to others during the course of this conversation), and having interacted with both of these editors, I might (jokingly) suggest that People bios either consider a career in acting or an appointment with a shrink specializing in multiple-personality disorder if they are in fact the same person, because it feels an awful lot like dealing with two completely different people. Either way, even assuming the worst possible faith, as you do, has anything improper actually been attempted here? There's no votestacking taking place here -- only an attempt to supply a reliable source. Whether the source is reliable or not is entirely unrelated to whether or not the IP and People bios are the same person. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, let's see. Here is the IP casting a "keep" !vote and here is People bios signing that !vote. I'd say that is pretty conclusive. Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one vote. One account is allowed one vote. And his "roommates" explanation above has been used consistently. and, either way, again, and most importantly: where is any evidence of inappropriate abuse of multiple accounts? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak Keep This took a bit of a careful review of the cited references, which at first glance might appear to be the type of thing that grants notability, but on review doesn't even provide much by way of verifiable information about Dr. Kim. The sources provide coverage of procedures that Dr. Kim uses and the clinic with which he is apparently associated, but no actual coverage of Dr. Kim himself. The only thing I can see that might help here is this published article but, again, this doesn't actually represent coverage of Dr. Kim, merely evidence that Dr. Kim is a published man in his field. Changing my vote to Weak Keep based on the new Korean sources and cab's translation, interpretation and explanation (which is greatly appreciated). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to argue for a keep based on newspaper coverage, which basically means using the WP:BIO standard, a lot more than a few such articles would have to be produced, typically a few dozen at least, depending on the depth of the coverage. That does not appear to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:N is intentionally vague on this point ("multiple"), but "a few dozen" is far above the standard typically required at AfD. cab (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not, I have participated in enough AfDs to know that. The depth of coverage is, of course, relevant, but a few newsstories are almost never considered sufficient to pass WP:BIO and generally a substantial number of such stories are required. That is how WP:BIO has been typically applied. There are exceptions, of course, e.g. if someone dies at there are several obituaries in major newspapers, something at the level of New York Times or Washington Post, that would be sufficient. Sometimes even a single source would suffice, e.g. a published biography book. But for the ordinary run-of-the-mill newscoverage a few newsstories are by far not sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is interesting -- I have participated in a huge number of AfDs myself, and this "a few dozen" standard would have changed the outcome of a great many of them. Needless to say, I disagree. I am a bit incredulous that anyone has participated in an AfD wherein someone took the time to count up 36+ individual newspaper articles before asserting that they conferred notability on the subject -- that would be a fairly outstanding amount of effort, based on the typically, erm, "casual" amount of effort I normally see applied at these discussions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, give me a break. I routinely use googlenews to check how many hits come up for a particular name. It does not mean that I read carefully every single hit, but I usually do scan through the results of the googlenews search to see what kinds of hits I get, if there are too many false positives, etc. I am sure that lots of others do to. That's why we even have an automatic link to GoogleNews in AfD pages, for Pete's sake. If I ever see something with a result in single digits, that is automatically a red flag. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. I am not attacking you. I use GNews just as anyone uses GNews in this context. Verifying that there are 36 different newspaper articles devoted to a subject would require a great deal more than a GNews "scan." You'd have to read the articles, to verify that they aren't reposts, duplicates, etc. That is all I'm saying. I am not calling you a liar (as you say in your rather uncalled for post on my talk page). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * no no no he has been covered there are many articles on him but they are all in KOREAN in the KOREAN NEWS PAPERS but the citations for Wikipedia are all the same and based on what I've been reading they are still considered citable and reliable sources so once I get my PARENTS to give me their NAME and DATES i will post them here but can someone else PLEASE update his page i dont know how to do this it is very very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.89.126 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If you can post 1 or 2 of these articles on him here, I will very happily change my vote to Keep, and I can also help out by updating the article with the article sources. Don't worry -- there's no immense rush or reason to be upset. These AfD discussions stay open for at a minimum seven days so you have at least a week to find the articles. Again, if you can show that there are articles that cover Dr. Kim I will happily, immediately change my vote to Keep. I saw your bit about wanting to get more coverage of prominent, successful Korean-Americans on your talk page and I have a lot of respect for that type of endeavor on Wikipedia. By the way, Korean language sources are just as good as English language ones. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * hi i found the articles...
 * "the korea herald: daily business"
 * june 16, 2009
 * "beverly hills yuh suhng deul gam tan"
 * i.e., beverly hills females impressed


 * --about how dr kim's fat grafting, eye, nose, breast, dark circle, and wrinkle correction procedures are literally the best


 * the korea daily
 * thursday, may 20, 2010
 * "chuh jihn noon soo sool moo lyoh sahng dahb bahd eu sae yoh
 * i.e., get a free consultation on whether or not you have ptosis


 * --about correcting upper eyelid ptosis (i.e., droopy/aging eyelid). New techniques are now used to correct this condition (i.e., during upper eyelid blepharoplasty), which are used by dr. kim since he combines his training from both korea and america to correct ptosis more effectively than other doctors. He uses a technique that allows him to treat the underlying tissue.


 * --"many people are going to see dr kim" now because he offers this special surgery.


 * ---> i'm trying to get more information on the matter. i know there was at least one more but we cant find it once i find it we'll post it right away thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.89.126 (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Clearly spam. The article had a number of references to pages and articles not related to the article subject.  Those have been removed. They certainly did not support notability nor do the remaining.  When I see examples of articles quotes to be added such as ""many people are going to see dr kim", "get a free consultation", and "beverly hills females impressed", I have to seriously question if the articles to be added meet WP:RS.   ttonyb  (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I am very sorry about all the confusion regarding this article. I am also sorry that this was such a poor first article. I tried editing it over and over yesterday, but I (clearly) didn't do a very good job since I didn't know how to do this very well since this was my first Wikipedia article. I tried to do a trial version, but it was still really confusing when it came down to citing everything correctly.


 * I am working on updating the information to try and make it more accurate, but please do not delete this article. It is one of many that I am trying to do to gain awareness when it comes to important contributions made by Korean Americans to help our community establish better, more positive role models. I took an interest in Dr. Kim's work when his most recent article came out (the May 20, 2010 one on ptosis) because he was really doing something that may seem minute and insignificant to many people, but to the Korean community, it really is a big deal. I don't know if anyone knows this, but plastic surgery is a VERY big deal in the Korean American community.


 * I hope you don't mind Ttonyb1, but I deleted your COI tag. I am not Dr. Kim, I am not paid by Dr. Kim, and I am not a friend of Dr. Kim's. I do not fall under any of the criteria based on the restrictions set forth in the COI tag. The only possible "conflict of interest" would be that I am Korean American, and that he is also Korean American, so if that means that there is some conflict of interest there, then that would also be saying that since I am human, then I am unable to write articles about another human, since we are both human, and there are not enough degrees of separation between us to make it so that my views on this human would not be biased or skewed in some way. I am merely interested in him, along with other members in the Korean American community who have been making significant contributions that I wanted the world to know about. Also, if I knew him, then this article would have been much easier to write, since I would have had all the resources BEFOREHAND rather than having to spend TWO days hunting them down, calling everyone I knew to try and find these articles that were written on him and trying to differentiate between the HUNDREDS of Kenneth Kim's that roam the earth...


 * Anyways, I have done my best to try and back everything with a reliable source, although I am sure it will still fall under scrutiny. To help with translation, I suggest using Babel Fish because it allows you to take the source I used and then cut, copy, and paste it into the box and you will get a very botched version of what the Korean version says. Please do bear in mind though that plastic surgery, although frivolous in many regards, is VERY important in the Korean community, so having an article like this is really important NOT FOR DR KIM'S PRACTICE but for the sake of many of those people who unknowingly go to some very bad surgeons. I have three friends already who have had the procedure and came out with BOTCHED eyes and needed to get their lids redone. As sad as it is, it's not even by choice all the time. One of my friends had her mother drag her in there when she was sleeping and she woke up to find herself at a plastic surgeon's office...


 * Also, my apologies to the entire Wikipedia community for writing such a poor, poorly sourced first article. I was trying to learn HTML while at the same time trying to find sources on Dr. Kim while also trying to discern between the hundreds upon HUNDREDS of different Kenneth Kim's out there (I am really starting to resent the lack of creativity when it comes to Korean people and their names...)


 * I never knew that it was so difficult to write a Wikipedia article, but my respect for Wikipedia (and its community) has literally TRIPLED (if not more) through this experience. Very reliable source. People bios (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Two sources from Koreantown Daily have been added to the article. The articles are [Interview Kenneth Kim, plastic surgeon] (Google Translate) and More pond Laser & Medi Spa, a plastic surgeon services performed (Google Translate). I'm not convinced that these are neutral reliable sources so I have asked and, two editors who speak Korean, to review the sources. Cunard (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also added the Yahoo article, which was dead at first because I cut and copy/pasted the URL incorrectly. Please do have them review that one too. I also have a printed article that is not online from the korea daily, but I don't know how to get that one verified. I have a digital/scanned copy of it, but it is not online. People bios (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Yahoo article (Google Translate), a reprint of an article from koreaheraldbiz.com, may be an acceptable source but after using Google Translate to review it, I am getting the feeling that the article is promotional and contains only passing mentions of the subject. I may be wrong though, so hopefully CaliforniaAliBaba and Ugen64 can shed some light on this. Remember, reliable sources that establish notability are those that are neutral, third-party sources that have received fact-checking/verification from reliable publications. The newspaper articles you provided, if they are neutral, nontrivial, and independent of the subject, should be enough to establish that Kenneth K. Kim passes Notability (people). For the print sources: Scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing site. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "'Comment"' Hi, Yes I started my own Flickr account just for this! I am about 1/5 of the way there...
 * Here is the link "[]" to the Flickr photo of the ad. Thank you Cunard! And Daniel Leivick for changing to neutral. (I realize you didn't do this for me but the cause, but I'll take it anyway :) !) — Preceding unsigned comment added by People bios (talk • contribs)


 * Weak keep Cunard asked me to comment here. Apparently everyone else who speaks Korean better than me is unavailable. Basically: there's a sufficient amount of coverage, it supports the statements that have been added to the article, but the quality of the coverage itself varies.


 * One relevant policy might be WP:LOCAL (not to mention the failed Notability (local interests). All of the newspapers where Dr. Kim is covered are the Los Angeles/California/North America editions of South Korean newspapers (of varying levels of reliability). What these guys do is take the content from their parent newspapers, and bundle it up with a few more articles written by local reporters on local subjects. These local reporters are typically not the parent newspaper's foreign correspondents (e.g. high-achieving professional reporters stationed in DC to report on U.S. politics for the benefit of readers in South Korea); rather, they're immigrants who live in the U.S. for some other reason and ended up as reporters (often freelance/part time).


 * The first two articles: The Koreatown Daily are apparently the U.S. edition of Sports Seoul (in S. Korea, it's basically seen as a local rag, a couple of steps up from a tabloid, complete with the Korean equivalent of Page Three girls. Dunno about their U.S. edition.). The first article is an interview which goes into various details about his background; the second one is focused on his medical practice and what services they offer to patients.
 * The third article, by Allen Choi: Korea Daily is the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo (a well-regarded national newspaper in S. Korea). Their website has no record of an article "처진 눈수술 무료상담 받으세요" ("Free consultation about surgery for drooping eyelids"). People bios posted the scan above. The article consists of one paragraph lead, one paragraph discussing the procedure offered, one paragraph about Dr. Kim and his background, a quote from him, a discussion of Medicare issues with the surgery, and his contact info.
 * The fourth article (on Yahoo): It's from the U.S. edition of The Korea Herald (another national newspaper in S. Korea). This is the "Beverly Hills Women Impressed" article mentioned above.
 * From a Google News search in Korean (, there seem to also be some articles in the U.S. edition of the Hankook Ilbo too. Is the same guy? (It discusses the election of a 1.5-generation Korean American named Kenneth Kim as president of the Korean American Medical Association of Southern California in 2007). What's a "가정주치 전문의"? The Korean American way of saying "general practitioner"? I found another article in the same newspaper  about how he is offering free procedures to senior citizens (e.g. cleft palate surgery).


 * Hope that helps. Cheers, cab (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi ~ Thank you very much CaliforniaAliBaba, I really appreciate this. I am trying my best to figure this out, but it is really difficult. The last one you found is not him, but I am definitely trying to find more information. I just don't know where to go and it's really hard because Korean people are so unimaginative when it comes to naming their kids...
 * I am going to see what else I can find. I really appreciate all this help I never thought this would turn into a lifelong endeavor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by People bios (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you also for editing CaliforniaAliBaba. I am really trying to find more articles on Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. I am trying to think of what else I can do. I have also been reading up more on the policies of reliable sources...


 * At this point, I think it's best not to worry about the exact details of the policy too much. The most important thing is to have secondary sources (e.g. articles in newspapers, rather than articles published by Dr. Kim). There's a secondary (and quite stringent) criteria WP:PROF which is used to assess people who publish in scholarly journals, but the primary criterion (WP:N) of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" overrides that anyway. This discussion will remain open for another week. Other people will come by and read the discussion and express their opinions based on the new information that has been added. The people who commented earlier may not be following this discussion closely and haven't checked back to see all the later developments. Regards, cab (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Asian Americans has been notified of this discussion. cab (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question (mainly for the people coming here from the Academics delsort list): how common is it for an unaffiliated author to be published in academic journals? In some fields (e.g. Physics) it's rather rare; in others it's perfectly normal. No idea how this works in the medical field. cab (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you cab. I tried to find the Korean American page to post the article up for review to get more comments on it, but I couldn't find it and then I got lost and forgot what I was trying to do... I just want to know how to do this right now, and how to make it better at this point. I really appreciate all that you've been doing for this. I still think there might be more articles on Dr. Kim, but it is really difficult because I don't really understand scientific language very well, and for some reason, there seem to be an unusually high number of Korean American men named Ken, Kenneth, Kenneth K. and Kenneth K. Kim who like to go into medicine, science, and Biology or Molecular and Cell Biology. I feel like I am trying to find a needle in a haystack.People bios (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article appears to make a claim for his notability as a researcher, so this entry is probably best judged by WP:ACADEMIC standards. With a common name like that, searching various databases (GoogleScholar and the like) is difficult, but, to the extent I have been able to check, his work has not been significantly cited. His own website does not list any particularly significant academic awards or honors. The most interesting one listed there is being a "a Rhodes Scholar nominee", but being a nominee, whatever that means, does not really cut it. Not much else here to indicate passing either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing in Google scholar, books, news. Notability not remotely achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

dr. kim has accomplished so much and is such a great model...but it doesn't seem to matter as much as just being a good person...
 * All of his articles were in Korean. Xxanthippe, Nsk92...did you try typing his name in korean? People bios (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, no, I did not. However, medicine is very much an international field and important work would have been significantly cited in English as well. Nsk92 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nsk92, I was just wondering, to what extent were you able to look him up? Also, I went to his website too, and it doesn't seem to be particularly finished. Many pages are still "under construction", and it doesn't mention any of his other articles. I would also appreciate it if you could please be more specific when it comes to a "particularly significant academic award or honor". What exactly constitutes this? The funny thing is, I major in History. People bios (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "what exactly" about such things, but, for example, I mean some kinds of awards by scholarly or scientific societies, elected or honorary memberships in such societies, honorary degrees, etc. Or even something smaller, such as delivering some named lectures/named lecture series at a university. I am fairly sure that if he had such awards, they would have been mentioned at his website. Nsk92 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding citations of his papers, I looked at the 3 papers listed in the article where he is given as the first author, and run them through GoogleScholar. The citation hits that came back for these papers were 6, 7 and 1. These are very low numbers. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And by all of his articles being in Korean, I meant the ones that were written about him as a person and as a plastic surgeon. I should have maybe put philanthropist and surgeon, since he's been doing a lot of surgeries to help people. There were two of him as offering surgeries for free to older patients who needed them for medical reasons... — Preceding unsigned comment added by People bios (talk • contribs)
 * To be honest, I just barely heard about that last article, about Dr. Kim offering free cleft palate surgery. The one before that, about dr. kim offering free ptosis consultation and operating on so many patients for free, was something i heard about. i really wish people found this sort of thing more admirable. so many other people have been kept around on here for accomplishing such silly things...


 * but i really think these people are the ones that needed to be recognized. not because of their ethnicity. i tried thinking of other korean american people i wanted to include here, but i couldn't think of any. i actually thought of another guy, jaeson ma, who i thought might be significant enough to make it, but even that is questionable so i didn't really try and push it... i just realized that dr. kim was really a good person and it seems like he's not about self promotion at all. i think he deserves to be recognized though. The more i hear and read about him, the more i think he deserves something like this. you just don't see people like that anymore.... People bios (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW~The picture was my property. I did not take it off Dr. Kim's page. I got it from my mother who got it from her work. I have the right to use the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by People bios (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Regardless of where you got it, it is property of the doctor and as such is a copyright violation if it is included in the Wikipedia article. Please do not add it back to the article   ttonyb  (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, if I write a letter to the doctor asking for his permission to use it, then may I use it? I read that this would be okay based on Copyright Policies set forth on Wikipedia.People bios (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * and if I get his approval to use it, of course, for this article. I wont write or ask though until this whole thing gets cleared up, for obvious reasons. I just need to know if this would be okay or if it would be bad for me to do because of conflict of interest. People bios (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what are the rules if my mom has a picture that she took with her own camera? I am not asking out of interest for this article, but for subsequent articles. Would that also be considered a copyright issue? or would it be acceptable under those terms?People bios (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I am very big on making things look "pretty", and I think that the picture makes his site look quite "pretty". Therefore, I would really appreciate it if you could please tell me how I may keep the picture on his page.People bios (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Requesting copyright permission. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi~I have a question...Nsk92 (talk) said that "For sources like newspaper articles, one typically needs quite a few sources to prove notability, certainly something in double digits." I don't remember reading about this anywhere, and I was wondering where this was stated exactly in Wikipedia's policies. Additionally, I was wondering exactly what that number was, in terms of double digits. Does this mean that if there are 10, then the article is considered worth keeping, but if there are 9, then it is not? I seem to be getting different answers on this, which is making it really confusing. I am trying to find an answer, not trying to throw around accusatory remarks or question anybody. I am just trying to improve myself as an editor.People bios (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Consequent to my taking part in this AfD debate a personal attack of an odious nature has been made against me by People bios. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I agree, that was pretty nasty and unacceptable. I have left a warning at User talk: People bios but I am half of the mind to make a report at WP:AN/I already... Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize for any and all accusatory claims made against Xxanthippe (talk). They were wrong of me and I am truly sorry. Please excuse/forgive my poor conduct/behavior. I really have a lot of respect for all members of the Wiki community because I think these discussions make Wikipedia a reliable resource. I have decided to stay off this discussion from now on because it occurred to me that I am being conflicted by my emotions, so I am not going to include myself in this discussion anymore. I realized my time would be better spent trying to work on my editing.People bios (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After issuing the above apology People bios posted the following comment on the talk page of Cunard: "I just casually throw around my insults, personal attacks, and automated letters of complaints without discretion, and then I ask for forgiveness later."  Xxanthippe (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Oh dear, now I feel like we are digressing from the issue at hand. Xxanthippe (talk), I am not quite sure how to take this comment you left on my talk page (and here). On the one hand, I am not sure if it is meant to be a joke, because the comment I left on Cunard's page that you are citing here was obviously said in jest (I was referring to his automated letter of complaint if you were paying attention to the thread). In context, it was clear to Cunard that I was not being serious and I did not mean offense. The whole thread of comments that were being left back and forth between us make that apparent, so I don't know how relevant your point can be here (if it is serious) since it is taken out of context and I do not know how you could misconstrue that. On the other hand, if you really think that it was said in sincerity, then as I mentioned before, I am very sorry about the personal attack I made against you, and I hope you will understand that I am not trying to make enemies on Wikipedia. I am just trying to edit and contribute to it. Also, I am not sure now if this issue has just become a personal vendetta for you against me, rather than it being about the issue at hand.People bios (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The thread from which you saw this comment is full of banter. I interpret People bios' comment as a joke, not a reflection of her style of editing. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per CaliforniaAliBaba. The sources presented in this AfD demonstrate that the subject passes Notability (people) : A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The two articles from the Korean Daily and the article by Allan Choi in the Korean Daily (the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo) provide nontrivial coverage of Kenneth K. Kim. Add these to this article from The Korea Times and the other sources at and notability is solidly established. I acknowledge that Kim doesn't pass WP:PROF; however, the depth and breadth of coverage he has received in several Korean newspapers demonstrate that he has had a significant impact on his community&mdash;enough, in my opinion, to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. This well-researched, carefully-crafted article by Peoples bio will help Wikipedia counter systemic bias on a non-English topic where sources are difficult to locate. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Having 3-4 newspaper articles covering a person is much less than is traditionally expected for satisfying WP:BIO. I would ordinarily want to see something in significant double-digits, which does not appear to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) says, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. WP:BIO does not require a person to have newspaper articles in the double digits. The guideline requires "multiple independent sources" that provide nontrivial coverage about the subject. Because Kenneth K. Kim has received nontrivial coverage in four newspapers (I consider four sources to fulfill the "multiple independent sources" that WP:BIO requires), he passes WP:BIO and is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, the text of WP:BIO does not mention specific numbers in relation to sources. However, in my experience, in regards to newspaper coverage, WP:BIO has been traditionally interpreted to require a considerable amount of coverage in terms of numbers and I cannot see 4 articles as anything nearly sufficient. Of course, like I said, there are exceptions, such as, for example obituaries in major national newspapers. But for ordinary run-of-the-mill coverage, anything short of significant double digits just does not cut it. Nsk92 (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a stricter interpretation of WP:BIO than I. For me, "multiple independent sources" means "three or more sources", not "twenty or more" or "sixty or more". These articles are not "run-of-the-mill coverage" that would fall under WP:NOTNEWS; they are spread out over a year. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Newspapers are not secondary sources. The only secondary source that would qualify is Hall-Findlay, Elizabeth; Evans, Gregory, eds, but we have no page, nothing. It's furthermore saying "forthcoming", meaning what? That the article editors haven't read it? --SulmuesLet's talk 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are secondary sources. The writers of the newspaper articles presented above do not seem to have been paid to write those articles. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Cunard, newspapers are definitely secondary sources. Many Wikipedika articles have their notability established with newspaper articles particularly those dealing with current figures and events. --Leivick (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those articles would be secondary source if and only if they were scientific and medicine magazines. Koreatown daily, Korea Herald Business and Korea Times don't look to me like scientific and medicine magazines. I stand by my opinion that this is a strong delete. Thank you for your attention. --SulmuesLet's talk 03:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide a citation for your assertion that only "scientific and medicine magazines" are secondary sources. I consider newspapers that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight to be secondary, reliable sources. The Korea Herald and the Korea Daily&mdash;the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo (a well-regarded national newspaper in S. Korea) (per cab)&mdash; are reputable sources. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cunard that some of these newspapers could be reliable sources. However, in this case, there are not enough of them and the sources that are accessible are slender. To satisfy WP:Prof #1 which is applicable to academics, scholars and researchers, and professionals we usually require, on the basis of past practice, 500-1000 cites from the independent research literature. The subject's cites are very far below these numbers. Although it is agreed that this BLP does not satisfy WP:Prof, claims for it are being made on the much weaker grounds of general notability. Even on these grounds, though, a substantial coverage is needed and it is not apparent here. Remember, the onus is on the proponent of any article to show that an article satisfies notability. My recommendation to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC).
 * My comments above demonstrate that Kenneth K. Kim passes Notability (people) due to the significant coverage in four reliable newspapers. The subject is not notable for being a scholar or academic&mdash;he is notable for being a plastic and reconstructive surgeon. As such I do not judge Kim's notability based on citations for scholarly papers; I judge his notability by the coverage he has received for his profession and his contributions to society as a plastic and reconstructive surgeon. I stand by my position that four reliable newspapers are enough to establish notability per Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought I should cast my own vote, although I do not know how much it matters since I am the article's creator, so I would obviously want my article to be kept. However, since Xxanthippe is saying the burden is on the proponent of any article to show that an article satisfies notability, I thought I should also state why I think Dr. Kim is notable since I haven't made it clear. I appreciate all the opinions that are being presented here, and I find all of them to be very logical, respectable, and valid. I agree with Xxanthippe and Nsk92 that there should be a significant amount of coverage, and that these sources should all be from reputable sources. However, I think Dr. Kim warrants notability not based on just one thing, but based on all of the contributions he made collectively. Furthermore, the news coverage that he received from the Korean newspapers were significant, not just because they were from reliable, respectable sources that were independent of Dr. Kim, but because of what they said about him. They made it clear that he offered free plastic surgery operations to senior citizens who were in need in the community, which should establish notability not just in the Korean American community, but to any community. Although his academic record is impressive, it is his actions that are really noteworthy and something of an example, which I believe most people should know about. I have a tremendous amount of respect for people who give back to their community in such a manner, and who is willing to be so selfless as to give up some of their time to make a significant contribution without asking for anything in return. I really do appreciate all the time that is being spent by others on this AfD discussion/debate, and when it comes to Dr. Kim, I think it is respectable that he did a lot of research, traveled around the world, and began his own practice; yet I don't think that is enough to establish notability. To be honest, I chose him as the subject of my first article because he was such a notable person based on the way he was acting, which was different from how most people I know typically view plastic surgeons and plastic surgery. Based on what I've been reading, it seems like most plastic surgeons are known for either the academic contributions they have made in their field, or because of the amount of exposure they have received in terms of media coverage for doing something like taking part in a reality show that involves plastic surgery. I find all these to be noteworthy, but I also think that the quality of Dr. Kim's exposure have also been noteworthy. They were from reliable sources that were independent of Dr. Kim that didn't just discuss his academic accomplishments and skill as a surgeon, but they also mentioned the contributions he made to his society. Some of the operations even I did not know about, but thankfully, cab was able to find this article on him, which talked about how he offered free cleft palate surgery to patients. Thus, I believe that Dr. Kim definitely meets the criteria for notability, mainly because his actions, which were attested to by reliable, independent sources (and which were also heard of in our community), are significant, inspiring, and noteworthy on multiple levels.People bios (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In order to justify the claims above, would People bios, the creator of the Afd, be able to compare the sources for this AfD with those for other plastic surgeons of comparable standing who have BLPs on Wikipedia? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete. I am a firm believer in treating new editors with kindness and patience. As a first attempt, this article is quite good in many ways (structure, use of Infobox person template, etc.). I am certain of this editor's honorable intentions, but in its current iteration, this article falls outside of certain guidelines, including Five pillars, What Wikipedia is not, and Tendentious editing. Much of the material in this article is what I would expect from a promotional pamphlet found in this doctor's office. Performing surgery for free makes Dr. Kim a nice guy, but it certainly does not establish his notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. As an aside, this editor's self-stated goal: "I started editing Wikipedia to try and raise awareness when it came to notable members of the Korean American community, respectable people in the general community...." is definitely at odds with the objectives of Wikipedia. Perhaps this article would be more appropriate for the Korean Wikipedia? I would respectfully encourage the editor to read William Pietri's essay Beware of the tigers, if she has not already done so. Lastly, I would also like to include a note of encouragement for her further contribution to the Wikipedia project. :-) DiverDave (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The article reads like a promotional puff piece and, by the author's own admission, was created exactly with that purpose in mind. It has already been clearly demonstrated that the subject is not notable as a researcher, falling far short of WP:ACADEMIC. Are we to believe then that he is notable as a community philanthropist  /charitable activist then?  If yes, there would be a lot more than 4-5 news-stories covering him. Compare with somebody like Sweet Alice Harris, who is indeed a notable community charity activist.  Show me this kind of coverage, in Korean or any other language, and there would be something to talk about. As it is, the article is a combination of spam and fancruft that does not belong on Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The promotional tone can be rectified. From Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." The article is well-sourced and is, I believe, fairly neutral. I have moved one sentence that could be construed as promotional to the talk page for further discussion. I do not believe Tendentious editing applies, since People bios has not acted tendentiously; she is a newcomer who was unaware of Wikipedia's rules. The editor's self-stated goal ("I started editing Wikipedia to try and raise awareness when it came to notable members of the Korean American community, respectable people in the general community....") is not at odds with Wikipedia's objectives. People bios is doing the commendable job of countering systemic bias on non-English topics where sources are difficult to locate. She notes that she wants to write about "notable members of the Korean Community" (my bolding), so she clearly wants to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have not commented about whether you believe Kenneth K. Kim passes the notability guidelines. Do you think Kim passes Notability (people)? My opinion is that the significant coverage in four newspaper articles is sufficient to pass the "multiple independent sources" required by the guideline. People bios has noted that she does not have a conflict of interest with Kenneth K. Kim, so she has no gain if the article is promotional or not. I am willing to help People bios rewrite any parts of the article that are believed to be promotional. Will you point out specific phrases or sentences that you deem to violate NPOV? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you DiverDave! I really appreciate your participation in this discussion along with your honest opinion.People bios (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment: I am beginning to feel confused. DiverDave, I really do appreciate you taking part in this discussion, but I feel a bit uncertain as to how to interpret this contribution you made. DiverDave, I am not sure how you could criticize this BLP, when you wrote the one on [this] living person, which was sourced by [references] that had no mention of him, and had [links] to youtube videos of his performances. I don't want to diverge from the point at hand, nor do I want to begin a different debate on the notability of Richie Castellano, so please do not let this extend to that. I appreciate the fact that you even made this contribution, since this seems to be the first wikipedia Afd debate you have participated in based on your [contributions], but I don't know how to interpret this anymore. I think I am a little hurt now because I was feeling like DiverDave was leaving an honest opinion, and I was really happy that someone wanted to comment at all, especially with such kind remarks regarding me being new to this whole thing. I feel really naive now, because i can't help but question how this article can fall under such scrutiny and criticism by him, and what the reasons are for doing this when I was just trying to write about someone that was noteworthy. I am fine with this one not going through if it is really based on a pure, unbiased perspective. I agree, I do not want Wikipedia to be full of "promotional puff pieces", because that would bring down the value of wikipedia as a whole. All I want is a fair Afd. I am starting to get the feeling that this is extending beyond the typical Afd discussion. Partly, I blame myself, because I made the mistake of saying this, which wasn't meant to be a personal attack since I wasn't trying to accuse Xxanthippes of being unreliable as much as I was looking for evidence to see why he would say that there were zero hits on Dr. Kim on Google Scholar when so many people already established that there were some, but not enough to establish notability. I think I just got a little too excited about this whole debate and I was treating it the way I used to approach mock trial competitions when I was younger. Still, I realized that this was different from how the WIkipedia community approached these discussions, and I realized my mistake and deleted the comment. Xxanthippes, I did look up the other BLPs that were under the category of American plastic surgeons, and many of them were not even sourced or referenced, but rather, had links to their websites and that's it. I just don't see the point in bringing them up though because I don't want this to diverge any more than it already has.People bios (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also mention, just to be clear, that I am not accusing DiverDave of anything, I am just confused because (based on what i've been hearing) it doesn't seem like his article falls under the parameters of "notability", so i am trying to figure out what does. i don't know if it's just me, because i realize i am limited to my own Point of View (everyone is), but it seems like he is guilty of the same thing he is trying to accuse me of, so I question why he is trying to bring this up. there is a difference between questioning and accusing, just like there is a difference between having good faith and being naive.People bios (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, DiverDave, I don't see how this article/BLP may be appropriate enough for Korean Wikipedia, but not appropriate enough for here. This doesn't make sense to me.People bios (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the only reason I brought up the Richie Castellano article (I apologize if this was something I shouldn't do) was because Nsk92 left a comment about it on DiverDave's |talk page, and it seems like it hasn't been questioned at all for notability. I may be wrong on this, but it seems like the only thing that fell under scrutiny was the fact that the hook wasn't long enough. Now, this is an honest question because I truly TRULY just want to know the truth: is the article falling under the parameters of "notability", and are the sources considered reliable? Because based on my very limited experiences on wikipedia, they weren't, but maybe i am mistaken? Any clarity on this would be appreciated, mainly because i just want to know how the article is more notable, then than the one I wrote on dr. kim. i realize that this article must stand on its own, but if DiverDave and Nsk92 could please explain how that article, its sources, and its subject is more notable than mine, then it would really help me understand this process a lot better and future issues/confrontation may be avoided. People bios (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hatted per People bios' wish to remove this content. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. In her remark above of 18.14 12 July People bios rehashes her personal attack on me, followed by a flippant and insincere apology. Together with the sock puppetry this would appear to be ripe for a RfC/U.  Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment – Can we focus on the purpose of the AfD? This is not a forum to discuss the implied, real, or imagined tone of comments.  The primary purpose of this forum is to discuss the merits of the article.  If there are issues associated with editors or their comments, they are best handled by other means, either directly with the editor or in an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion, not here on the AfD.  As a general comment to all of us on this AfD, let us all remember that we need to apply WP:AGF to all comments and editors.   ttonyb  (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I am sorry I was trying to erase the last couple comments i left because i realized they were diverging from the main issue, but they were reverted by another editor due to "bad form" saying "removing others' comments is considered bad form". I am not sure, but I thought it was okay to erase my own comment. Either way, I agree with Ttonyb1 and I am really starting to get stressed out by this. I apologize to Xxanthippe because I realize this is my fault, I started it by attacking him first. I truly believe he had good intentions when he first left his vote, and I am really sorry for questioning his motives. I also apologize to Nsk92 because I think I have also offended him because i kept asking so many questions on his talk page after he had left his vote, and I could see how that would get a little annoying after awhile. I think I was a little too idealistic when I started this entire article. The last time I ever engaged in this sort of thing was in High School, when I used to do mock trial. I was taught to win an argument by attacking the opponent's argument and validity, so I was using that tactic here. I realize now that that is different from how these debates are supposed to be carried out, and I am sorry. I was confused at first because it seemed like Xxanthippe never actually searched for the name since he said "nothing", but I talked to my friend about it and she pointed out that he could have been referring to "nothing significant" rather than how i interpreted it, which was as "nothing at all". I really am sorry because I realize I am the one that started this whole thing by making unnecessary accusations at Xxanthippe, and I truly seek his forgiveness on this. I don't blame him for getting defensive, because I realize i started it and it would have never happened if i hadn't attacked him first. this whole thing is causing me so much stress now and i feel horrible about how this is all turning out.People bios (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Boldly collapsing content not materially relevant to this AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * -Delete, not much notable and not much coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impressive resume, like many other good doctors. JFW | T@lk  20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all good doctors have received enough coverage to pass Notability (people); Kenneth K. Kim has received the "multiple independent sources" required to pass that guideline. These two articles from the Koreatown Daily, the article by Allan Choi in the Korean Daily (the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo, a well-regarded national newspaper in South Korea), and this article from The Korea Times and the other sources at establish notability. There are other sources such as this article from Yahoo! (a reprint of an article from koreaheraldbiz.com) which provides some more coverage. Few doctors have received this depth of coverage in a variety of newspapers. This distinguishes Kim from the legion of other doctors in the world, and is the reason that I believe this doctor passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I can't judge the sources perfectly due to the limitations of Google Translate, but from what I can see there's probably enough here to pass WP:BIO: coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, if not particularly in-depth. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dr. Kim has been the subject of non-trivial coverage that were independent of him, and the variety and depth of coverage has also been established by other editors. They verify that he has been noted as a scholar, surgeon, and as an individual. Also, DiverDave, thank you for your patience with me. I wanted to ask how this article might be more appropriate for the Korean Wikipedia rather than the English one. I consider notability on Wikipedia to be established by the same standards for every translation of Wikipedia. Although I do want to gain recognition of notable individuals who are of Koran American descent, my determination of what is noteworthy is judged by an individual's significance as an individual and is independent of their ethnicity. Since articles on non-English subjects have a practical issue they face — being that many of them will be backed by non-English sources — it seems reasonable that someone who is familiar with the language and culture should assume responsibility for writing articles on such topics. Additionally, this article has been reviewed, edited, and improved by others in the community for Tendentious editing. Therefore, considering some members of the community have found the article's subject to be non-trivial and noteworthy, I would appreciate it if any editor who is questioning the article could suggest ways to improve the article in order to ensure it reads as encyclopedic content, rather than as a promotional ad. ℮Տڂ Һℯɼ ❤  ʗҺɑʈ  00:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the person signing themselves as ℮Տڂ Һℯɼ  ❤  ʗҺɑʈ  is editing from the same account as People bios, the creator of the AfD who has contributed much to this debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC).
 * They are the same person/account. It is not altogether uncommon for someone's signature to not match their account name. That said, for clarity's sake it is good for anybody reviewing this to recognize that the comment above is from the same person as earlier comments from People Bios. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also 76.87.89.126 who is claimed to be People bios's room mate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC).
 * This is well-covered at the top of this AfD. I'm not sure why it needs to be brought up down here as well. I wasn't sure what the point was in bringing it up at the top, for that matter -- I mean, all we have here is extremely damning evidence that People Bios signed a vote he contributed without signing in, and then corrected the error by signing in and re-signing his vote.  ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for bring it here is so the closing admin may get an idea of how many independent voices are taking part in this debate. The contributions of editors with a background in Korean-American culture are particularly valuable in a subject such as this. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC).
 * There are still a couple of posts in this AfD signed as 76.87.89.126 rather than as People Bios. People Bios says it was her roommate. Nsk92 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake -- I thought based on the earlier calls for a sockpuppet investigation and the previous tagging of this article with the "notavote" tag that some similar insinuations might be going on what with the "claimed to be" language I see above. I had no idea your intention was to draw out the importance of their respective separate contributions. I see now your intention was to point out that the IP and People Bios are separate people, which is perfectly agreeable. My apologies. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the IP address user 76.87.89.126 was my roommate. I have always gone back on and signed when it was me in order to avoid confusion. I have told her to stay off since the day this Afd began, and I have told her to stay off this discussion telling her she didn't understand the politics of Wikipedia (not that I am the authority on it either). Although her opinion should matter too we are not trying to cast more than one vote between us for this discussion anyways, so there is only one vote cast for the IP address. Also, I would like to clarify that I am people bios. I am new to this, and I spent three hours yesterday finding unicode text and html color codes to produce this ---> ℮Տڂ Һℯɼ ❤  ʗҺɑʈ  03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)As you can see, I am very excited about HTML these days. Finally, and more importantly, I was able to find [another article] on Dr. Kim from Radio Korea, which is the #1 Korean radio broadcasting station. The article is saying that the word is spreading that Dr. Kim is offering free ptosis surgery every Wednesday on a weekly basis for elderly patients who are in need. So far, this means that Dr. Kim has been mentioned by all of the significant Korean mass medias (that I am aware of) that are available in print form (i.e., The Korea Daily, The Korea Times, The Korea Herald Business, and Radio Korea). ℮Տڂ Һℯɼ  ❤  ʗҺɑʈ  03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the new article. If anyone is unhappy with the wording, please help me improve it. Thank you. ℮Տڂ Һℯɼ ❤  ʗҺɑʈ  03:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * People bios, have you voted twice here? .oh ok.I see it was your room mate from the same computer. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is quite correct. She has made it clear above that it was her room mate using the same computer. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC).


 * -Delete Seems to me that this doctor does not pass either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 10:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ACADEMIC doesn't seem to apply here -- Dr. Kim is not an academic. As for bio, I do not see how he doesn't pass. Significant coverage in multiple independent sources. But my primary point in commenting here is the WP:ACADEMIC bit -- there is clearly disagreement over the relevance of the existing coverage, and I respect that you disagree with my point of view on that! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * New information/suggests delete Some of the papers are not the most objective. I think the Korea Daily and the Koreatown Daily are an American published Korean newspapers where you can advertise and then they will write an article about you.  Other references are Wikipedia, which are not permitted.  The Korea Hearld Business, I don't know.  The scientific articles do not describe the man.  The big problem of this article is that it lacks suitable references.  Usually WP articles are for famous doctors who did some sort of research or first lung transplant.  Just a Koreatown doctor is usually not enough.  Besides, disgruntled patients could mess up the article.  There's another Los Angeles doctor that managed to get a WP article even though it really doesn't meet notability standards.   Also the doctor may not want a WP on him because then who know which disgruntled patient will edit it.  The doctor is not an ophthalmic plastic surgeon (oculoplastic surgeon) and a general plastic surgeon really has no business doing ptosis surgery much as an oculoplstic surgeon has no business doing lung transplants. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you Suomi for leaving such a thoughtful comment here. I do not know what you mean about the other references being Wikipedia, because I do not believe I referenced Wikipedia in here. When I was saying I was "correcting the links" in the article's [edit history], I meant links to the other pages in these things --> [ [ blahblahblah ] ]. Did I reference them improperly? The other possibility is that you mean the links send you to the article that is referenced in the same WP article, but if you paste them into the google search box, you can look up the actual article. Also, I am not sure about what the difference is between an ophthalmic plastic surgeon and a general plastic surgeon, but I know that Dr. Kim specializes in ptosis surgery. I am not sure if there is an exact reference for this, but the articles do talk about his work in those areas. They're just extremely hard to understand because they're in Korean, and the translation is difficult to understand as well because they do things such as referring to him (and the general public) in a very polite manner, which has a lot to do with the linguistic aspects of the Korean language (something I wish would change). [His research] also shows he has done some significant work in these areas. Also, there are many doctors who are known for doing some sort of research, while there are also many other doctors who are known for doing charitable work for their community, but I know very few doctors (in fact none) who are known for doing both. Dr. Kim has been sourced as doing all of these. Additionally, the [Korea Herald] article  also mentioned his skill as a surgeon based on the reaction he has been receiving from the community. These are three different things about the same man that independently might be admirable, but collectively are notable. ℮Տڂ Һℯɼ  ❤  ʗҺɑʈ  19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, does anyone know when this thing ends? I am curious as to how long these things usually run for... ℮Տڂ Һℯɼ ❤  ʗҺɑʈ  19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually 7 days, and then an admin will assess them, and if there's no consensus they can be relisted for a further 7 days. This one looks rather complex, so it may be a little while until an admin can examine and understand it all before making a decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Cunard and others. The Korean-language sources provided look like enough for WP:BIO from where I'm standing, if only by a small margin. Alzarian16 (talk)


 * Delete First, I have every sympathy with the poor admin who will have to read through all this lot of verbiage to assess it. If, however, we ignore irrelevant material such as whether or not there has been sockpuppetry, People bios making a personal attack on Xxanthippe, etc etc etc, and if we leave out arguments unrelated to Wikipedia polciy (such as "hes been doing really great things and I wanted more positive korean american role models please please don't get rid of his article"), then we are left with the fact that the supposed notability rests on a number of newspaper mentions, most of which, by all accounts, are fairly insubstantial. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for the vote. I am sorry about the confusion, but there was no sockpuppetry (just my roommate and I. Also, there was only one vote for that IP address, so that's that). Also, the personal attack was an accident. I am new to this and the proper way to go about these Afd discussions (this was my first article), so I made the error of treating this like a high school mock trial competition. I have been learning fast though. Finally, the newspapers that were mentioned were from reputable sources, and from a variety of them. Still, regardless of how this article turns out (keep/no consensus/delete) I am interested in trying to go over the other articles under the category of American Plastic Surgeons in order to clean them up and find either sources to back up their claims or have them removed and would like some help. I hate mentioning it here, but I do not know where I can go to say this. I realize now why this one is receiving so much opposition as I have been spending some time looking at the others. I am not trying to get them removed, but I would like to see people being properly informed and my students tend to rely very very heavily on Wikipedia for any and all things they consider to be "reliable information". Considering the popularity of plastic surgery has been spiking in recent times, I think it would be a good idea to make sure that these things are considered. I also am sorry for being so verbose and for asking so many questions, but I promise I'll pay back the Wiki community for their patience with me through what I learn in the process. ℮Տڂ Һℯɼ ❤  ʗҺɑʈ  20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Another spam/vanity page. (Keeping down the verbiage...) Peridon (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2010 (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.