Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin Wang 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. I'm sorry Joungok but the consensus is clear on this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jin Wang Kim

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not sure if this one is notable per WP:ACADEMIC, but pretty obviously it's WP:PROMO by single-purpose account. I deleted the blatant crap from this article, but the rest isn't much better. If you check the refs, you'll notice that half of it doesn't mention Kim, and the other half is just promotional stuff. Overall, this bio smells incredibly fishy, particularly since Kim went from an ordinary plastic surgeon to Sir Kim, the international renowned surgeon, professor, inventor and philosopher of science. Either way, has a lot to explain. bender235 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This bio is about a plastic surgeon and doesn't measure up to the rest of the entries in the category "Optical physicists." Also, Kim's theory is not referenced to a refereed journal.  Signed by Corrigendas. — Preceding undated comment added 17 February 2011


 * This article seems very notable, but I agree that many references are crap.--Taekyukim91 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of grammatical errors needs to be corrected. --syp266 (talk) 18 February 2011


 * But how do you know Kim is notable? Is there any credible source mentioning him as a notable scientist? --bender235 (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Truth be told, the "seems notable" riff is crap. Fails WP:BIO, no evidence he passes the GNG.   Ravenswing  00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some tiny cites on GS. Looks like junk to me, but I am prepared to be proved wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment. Hi, everyone you can see the textbook publised the Asian laser blepharoplasty with medial epicanthoplasty and lateral canthoplasty: for reduction of down time and patient's satisfaction and human skin laser light tissue interaction. 2009 IPRAS Book ,185-198 pages published by Medimond Co. Italy publishing date 2010-June, ISBN 978-88-7587-564-0. you know about kim's theory and see the his article published by yonsei university. And he is honoary advisory board of IPRAS (90 nations)    [www.ipras2011vancouver.ca/scientificprogram_committees.html] And IPRAS has 100000 member around world includig U.S.A..And he is the president of ISLSM (Thomson Reuter S.C.I. conference ISSN 978-0-7354 ) congress now. And majority of the reference is under the wikipedia guideline for example official News letter and Wiki tree reference korean wikipedia etc. And about optical physisit it’s application in cancer diagnosis such as spectroscopy ,called photodynamic diagnosis In the field Kim is featured member(http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/ipa/boardmembers.php) so it is not a crap as well as junk and he is also well known doctor in korea, Japan, china regarding about his works ( in the fied of plastic surgery and laser, PDT,PDD, Optics )   And he is also accredted surgeon in Lipoplasty University (http://www.lipoplastyuniversity.com/surgeon.php ). Korean News paper and Korean broadcast report him in KBS TV News 9 ,you can also see Korean related article and Official News Letter in Korea Wikipedia about him .KOFST is the priority society of science and technology in korea by government basis. he is the council member of KOTSF .And  you can easily find him in internet such as google, Yahoo, Naver Thank you --Joungok (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The book you mentioned does not exist in WorldCat. A Google News search for Kim yields no results. Google Scholars returns some articles, but nothing spectacular. Also, having your work published does not automatically make you notable. Anyone can publish something. It's whether the scientific community considers it notable. --bender235 (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi I think you do not know about medical and physical basis article you can easily fined here about the article and google search. And watch the honorary advisory board Jin Wang Kim, Ivo Pitanguy, Ralph Millard who is in wikipedia now And scientific board name Jin Wang Kim and Wolf Wu who is in wikipedia now Thank You --Joungok (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi -Taekyukim91 NYU Chair of Plastic Surgery Dr McCarty's name also noted with Jin Wang Kim as Honoary Board of IPRAS so it is not a crap. Josep G McCarthy --Joungok (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I here and read that there are many indication of nominate about academican definition in wikipedia. Minimal requirement is one of award and prize from "American Biographical Institute" in the field of medine and academy ( Wold academy of letters vice chancellar of ABI) or real chancellar of their academy. Professor Kim is real educator college of medicine (Hallym university), "Credible source of real scientist" source- 1 he got a 1st Science Dr. degree BK21 Project of medical science from Yonsei University 2001.  2. Council member of Korean Society  Federation for Science and Technology, Published many S.C.I. scientific article and Books, research ,invention,innovation, patents, chair of many international S.C.I conferences etc. Mention about "extroardinary and ordinary" problem is just according to the references. In small amount reference people do not understand why he is extrordinary that's all ,don't you think so?


 * Hi  Ravenswing , and bender235 Your mentioned World Cat related article also easily find Thank you --Joungok (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So the suspicion and charge by user bender235 is starting from misunderstanding about several points. And some technical problem occured during upgading process of wikipedia, last week. --Joungok (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You still don't understand. Notability is not proven with publications by the subject, but about the subject. Are there any reliable sources that verify Kim's status as a renowned scientist? If so, please name them. --bender235 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. The World Cat search string Joungok provided above (at 12:28 18 February, 2011 UTC) didn't enclose the subject's name in quotation marks. This one does, and it returns three papers only, from 1997 and 1998, two of which list "Joung Ok Lee" as second author. Our Wikipedia single-purpose account friend, "Joungok" is obviously the same person, presumably promoting his professor's or mentor's career. I'm sure Jin Wang Kim is a fine doctor, and I'm sure Joungok means well, despite having twice removed the AfD tag from this article, but he obviously doesn't understand WP:COI, WP:ACADEMIC, and a host of other relevant policies. In short, and without the least offence intended, this article is academic fancruft, and clearly can't be permitted to remain. Sorry, Joungok.  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. Engineers and scientists are often confused in the minds of the general public, with the former being closer to applied science. While scientists explore nature in order to discover general principles, engineers apply established principles drawn from science in order to create new inventions and improve upon the old ones.[11][12] In short, scientists study things whereas engineers design things. However, there are plenty of instances where significant accomplishments are made in both fields by the same individual. When a scientist has also an engineering education, the same individual would explore principles in nature to solve problems and to design new technology. Scientists often perform some engineering tasks in designing experimental equipment, and some engineers do first-rate scientific research. Biomedical, mechanical, electrical, chemical, laser and photoscience and aerospace engineers are often at the forefront of scientific investigation of new phenomena and materials. As you know his is presidnet of International Society for Laser in Surgery and Medicine (Thomson Reuter Scientific.Cited .Index. conference ISSN 978-0-7354)
 * So working with Nobel Prize Winner Zores Alperof Jin Wang Kimand research article in Book about stem cell biomodulation is definite evidence of scientist, medical scientist and more he was included in Marquis who's who in America Scientist and engineering if you want to more and more want reference ,it is welcome to suggest more , but I am sorry to say much more thing about science write than you. --


 * Oh Oh I am sorry OhioStandard  (talk) I am not the person you imagine. I am a simple user like youJoungok (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary – your edit history does indeed demonstrate that your account basically exists to serve just this one article – it is what is called a single purpose account. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC).


 * About WP:COI, WP:ACADEMIC, and a host of other relevant policies problem is unintended problem not only occuring during the upgrading period of Wiki server ( thre are several warning signal about malfunction as you know -it can confirmed by wiki manager) but also very short working period of english Wikipedia. Anyway it is happening of very short period making huge sentence, so I recommand to give a time to restore the sentence.


 * And about "On the contrary – your does indeed demonstrate that your account basically exists to serve just this one article – it is what is called a single purpose account. Respectfully" is not true. I contribute to many article but as pointed out by Agricola44 I overcome of several problem occur in Wiki during the period I think so. Thank You Joungok (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The few edits you've made outside this article, e.g. this one also promote the subject of this article. Anyone looking at your edit history will readily see the WP:SPA nature of your account for themselves. It's not going to help your case to deny this in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. I don't know what your second sentence above even means, sorry. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC).


 * I mean try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. that means viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. For balancing about that sevral revison must be, should be preformed .don't you think so. Agricola44 ---   Joungok (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:PROF notability; no significant coverage in reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi OhNo itsJamie Talk ,there are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, science, physics, medicine etc. It is difficult to draw up a rule but there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on someone it can be a featured article in the Wikipedia I think, thank you. Joungok (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pay attention OhNo itsJamie Talkwikipedia's  first ranking is college professor you can find Jin Wang Kim in University professor in contributer list page see WP:PROF Joungok (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is the link Joungok meant to supply. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - pure vanity bio, fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG among others. ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi ukexpat sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted ,When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/delete etc." it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. However, threats to actually put these other articles forward for AfD after a debate closes may be interpreted as all-or-nothing reasoning thank you ! Besides numerous article, reliable source of S.C.I. Journal and Books and News letters.
 * One of the reliable source is KBSand CNN relationship and Jin Wang Kim appearedKBS NEWS 9 ANDJin Wang Kim Apprecition for American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Directors of ABLS Education and Membership Jin Wang Kim, MD, PhD, AsiaBesides American Biographical Institute and International biography center in cambridge publication Marquis Whos' Who Healthcare and Medicine,in America,in the World,Science and EngineeringJoungok (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Friendly suggestion for Joungok, the more you repeat the same comments in answer to every !vote here, the more you harm your case and the more desperate you seem. Make your point once and if you have sources add them to the article. The closing admin isn't going to be impressed by your repetitious comments here. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a vanity, one of the interesting reference in this article is Harold Gillies - Father of Plastic Surgery ,Jin Wang Kim, Isaac Kaplanand each relations. Thank you Joungok (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Joungok, it would be better for you to add these references to the article in a neat, orderly way than to just keep throwing them at our heads here. I still don't think Jin Wang Kim meets our standards for an article, but if there is anything in all the references you're giving us here, on this AfD page, that would change anyone's mind, we will never find it. There is just too much here, and it is presented in too disorganized a way. To speak directly, no one here is going to take the time to sort through all of the poorly formatted links you're giving us here. You need to present them in an orderly way that makes it easy for your fellow editors to verify them. That's what articles are for. This process should continue another four or five days; that will give you time to try to add meaningful, reliable references to the article, to try to make your case that Dr. Kim is notable. Again, I think that will probably be wasted effort; I doubt he is notable, as we all use that word here. But arguing with each new vote here, with new links for every one, is not going to work. Put them in the article if they're useful, and then come back here and ask us to take another look. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional comment. I think we can all predict where this is going, but let's give Joungok the time to sort all these links properly and integrate them into the article, to whatever extent they legitimately can be. It seems remotely possible to me that we could all be surprised. So no WP:SNOW closure, okay? at least not until we see whether the article improves? Either that, or a wp:snow userfy might be tolerable, to give the creator time to sort all these links into the article. Just my three cents . :) –  OhioStandard  (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ( I've just struck out my objection to a wp:snow closure, above, and want to apologize to everyone for having made it. I've checked more of the refs, and they don't support any notability that I can see. Further, I don't accept Joungok's statement that he's not the same "Joung Ok Lee" who's listed as second author on two of the only three papers by Jin Wang Kim that I could find via Worldcat. Also, Joungok's repeated emphasis on some adverse affect that the recent WikiMedia version upgrade might have had doesn't impress me as especially meaningful or relevant, either. I have no objection to a wp:snow closure, if other editors think it appropriate at this time. -- OhioStandard 07:33, 20 February 2011 UTC )


 * Hello OhioStandard thank you for your consideration if bender235 (talk) do not mind, I would like to step by step writing and do my best against worst one. Thank you Joungok (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For my part, it's still strong delete. --bender235 (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello bender235 You here me . Don't let me be misunderstood. I am just working as Wikipedian, I am not contest you , so be happy and work together for nice wikipedia . if there are any question and problem in sentence don't hesitate ask me and let's start discussion, OK? thank you. Joungok (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the discussion? All we're asking is one thing: name a reliable source that describes Jin Wang Kim as an "internationally-known plastic surgeon". And I'm not talking about a promotional page or a conference advertisement. --bender235 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello --bender235 reliable source of the wiki is not only CNN but also official newsletter form S.C.I. Journals and conferences sources too. SoOfficial Board Certified 100000 members in IPRAS including U.S.A.,2007 berlin IPRAS Honoary Advisory Board,2009 Newdeli International Advisory Board,, Vancouver IPRAS scientific committee Jin Wang Kim representative Korea, official newsletter of ISAPS etc. help for you --bender235 thank youJoungok (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And again, you've listed only promotional links. Where's the CNN link? I neither found it here, nor on the Jin Wang Kim article. --bender235 (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Listen Bender235 see the below sentence carefully. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS) Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples and Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. will help you . your term ‘Promotion’ is one of the four elements of marketing mix (product, price, promotion, distribution) so it is quite different meaning as you know isn’t it. So this is not promotion. Read the reference of article carefully 12th Asian Pacific Association for Laser in Medicine and Surgery, this joural will help for your understanding I believe. Thank you Joungok (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm getting tired of this. In this "article", Jin Wang Kim is mentioned only once, stating that he delivered the opening remarks at some congress. WTF? That doesn't make him a notable scientist. --bender235 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's a laundry list of positions held and such, none of which demonstrate notability. There is one statement, however, that would qualify: "And he is considered as pioneer of laser and plastic surgery". This is supported by 3 references. The deal-breaker is that none of these are WP:RS. Two are web-pages that do not even support the assertion and one seems to be an image scan of the subject's personal copy of a Marquis who's-who. None of these are acceptable sources. The article and the AfD together paint a pretty convincing picture of a vanity piece. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Hi : Agricola44 reference journals help for you thank you Joungok (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that none of these sources confers notability. Many of them are records of the activities of a learned society. They show that the subject exists but not that he is notable. Earlier in this debate I said that I would change my vote if adequate evidence emerged. It has not and my vote remains delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment: Look, Joungok - at this point, we've been fed enough chaff to choke on it. Here's what you need to do to save the article: find reliable sources in MAINSTREAM MEDIA. We don't want webpages.  We don't want PDFs of meeting minutes.  We don't want passing citations in lists of dozens of co-authors.  We don't personal websites.  We don't want fleeting mentions of a name and nothing more.  We want ARTICLES, in verifiable, reliable PRINT publications, that discuss the subject in "significant detail" as the notability guidelines require.  If you can't provide them, then the subject isn't notable, but at this point, you're starting to insult our intelligence.  I assure you, in the most earnest possible manner, that we are not going to be convinced by volume of Google hits or the sort of sources you're throwing up at us.   Ravenswing  00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ravenswing. I am really thanks to help my work when I wander the darkness without say anything. And you are also good working man in Wiki too, as I early mentioned before I am not contest against you. I am just working now so don't afraid them. And my work keep going unitil make perfect one with reliable sources. And I am impressed again by ukexpat's friendly suggestion. thank you Joungok (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (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.