Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen 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 DELETE. —Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Helen Kim

 * — (View AfD)

Not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad faith nomination. See nominator's discussion at: Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino. Moreover, the subject has appeared in a major film, and a better article could be written on her. Deleting this stub prevents that, and removes valid information from Wikipedia. Dekkappai 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is a bad faith nomination. How exactly is this actress notable?  One singular minor role in a major film does not pass WP:BIO.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify why this is a bad faith nomination: The nominator edited this article, and saw no reason to recommend its deletion last week. Previously he had systematically nominated for deletion multiple articles in the Japanese adult actress category. When his efforts to erase that category began failing, he stopped for a few months. Now that he is again trying to have articles in that category deleted, starting with Hikari Hino, his editing hypocrisy at this article was pointed out. He then retaliated by nominating this article for deletion. Dekkappai 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I "saw no reason to recommend its deletion" then because I was only mass categorising actors/actresses that day. If you check my contrib history on the same day, you'll see that I put the same category on 10 other actors/actresses.  I apologise if it did not occur to me, while editing with the intent of categorising articles, to nominate articles for deletion if they ought to be nominated.  I'll try to do a better job next time.  And please assume good faith.  If you believe this article ought to be kept, please actually make an argument to show that she is notable under WP:BIO.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Kill Bill Delete.  Never saw the movie, but looking at our article on it, it looks like she had a very minor part because the character she plays is nowhere mentioned in the plot summary.  So if that role is her only claim to fame, it's doubtful that there are many reliable sources we can use to write a verifiable article on her.  43 unique Google hits for "helen kim" -wikipedia actress "kill bill" -site:imdb.com.  Pan Dan 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously correct, Pan Dan. But this article was up for 2 years, the nominator previously saw fit to edit it, and nominated it for deltion today simply out of petty retaliation. Dekkappai 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, no redirect, lack of notability. From WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Notice that films and productions are in plural. I also see no bad faith at all, that an editor would edit a page does not imply he thinks its an acceptable page; people should be allowed to change their minds. No redirect, because there are a ton of Helen Kims out there; there is a chance there is a H.Kim out there who has or soon will have notability. hateless 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete db-bio. One minor role in a major film doesn't cut it. Danny Lilithborne 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no redirect. She has one minor film role to her credit.  That doesn't pass muster for WP:BIO and redirecting to Kill Bill would be confusing for anybody searching on Helen Kim as it would nto be at all obvious why the redirect occured.  And as for this being a bad faith nom, I can see where an editor who is busy on a specific task of categorising could come back and nom for deletion.  And does it matter? Based on merits, the article should be delete. -- Whpq 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "it would nto be at all obvious why the redirect occured" -- makes sense.  Her role in the movie was apparently so minor.  Have changed my suggestion above.  Pan Dan 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.