Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth 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 over the application of WP:LOCAL and WP:RS (and WP:GNG to some extent too). Unfortunately the pendulum hasn't swung very much since the last AfD. Deryck C. 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth Kim
AfDs for this article:
 * Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim
 * Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kim


 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable figure in our field. Droliver (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Related AFD: Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. Not commenting at this time. tedder (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - One of a series of nominations of plastic surgeons. I have found the other similar challenges that I have looked at to range from hasty to incompetent. No opinion on this one at this time. This is harder to check, but I did want to flag this one so that people to take a very close look. The track record here is not promising... Carrite (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; although the subject is clearly published in journals, the subject does not appear to pass WP:BIO per WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Therefore, as the subject does not pass WP:GNG the subject does is not notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per CaliforniaAliBaba at Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. 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 articleWebCite 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. (rationale copied from previous AfD) Cunard (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Excuse me for evaluating this article in the English Wikipedia according to the same standards I would apply to any other article in the English Wikipedia. My conclusion is: non-notable. His accomplishments do not sound particularly noteworthy, his list of publications in the article is not impressive (it is virtually impossible to search Google Scholar since he has such a common name), and I cannot evaluate sources which are written in Korean. --MelanieN (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Machine translation can be used to at least approximate the meaning and value of most non-English content. Regardless, the inability to interpret sources written in Korean is still irrelevant; we weigh material in all languages equally. —  C M B J   15:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subject does not pass WP:PROF. However, he passes Notability, as established by 's analysis of the sources from the previous AfD, which I've added below. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article itself doesn't really make any extraordinary claims and I'd like to think that Droliver is, as someone in the same field, inclined to be a good barometer in that capacity. With that said, a sufficient number of sources appear to reasonably satisfy WP:BASIC and the burden to prove otherwise on an individual basis rests with those favoring deletion, so I'm going to have to say weak keep . Subsequent arguments have raised convincing points about the relative value of material cited. Weak delete. —  C M B J   10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the text of 's review of the sources from the previous AfD:


 * 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)

Cunard (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. The Korean sources do not appear to make an assertion that he is more noteworthy than the average plastic surgeon or researcher. Rather, they appear to be promotional in nature, which isn't uncommon for medical professionals in private practice. Location (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * weak keep meets WP:N via the sources identified above though with the issues (local, nothing particularly amazing) identified above. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Additional sources: I have searched for and found additional sources from http://www.drkennethkim.com/press.aspWebCite. They included several of the sources listed above. Omitting those, I have selected three others I deem the strongest:
 * Delete no significant notability, routine publciations only. The awards indicated arestudent awards, and therefore indicate no significant importance from the point of view of an encyclopedia . The coverage in the Korean-language newspapers of his area is , like all such local coverage, indisriminate public relations  DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Different newspapers have interviewed or written about him, etc.    D r e a m Focus  07:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Kenneth K. Kim passes Notability (people) owing 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. Few doctors in Kenneth Kim's field 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 articleWebCite 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. DGG's contention that the sources are merely local is refuted by the coverage in Korean Daily, the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo, a well-regarded national newspaper in South Korea according to Korean-language reader . Cunard (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for medical professionals who perform pro-bono work to get coverage in news outlets from time to time as human interest stories (e.g. Dr. Steven Pearlman in The New York Times, Dr. Edgar Biemer in Central Asia Online, Dr. Philip Young in Northwest Asian Weekly). Another Korean surgeon, Dr. Joo Kwon, also gets coverage in The Korean Herald as well as mentions in various other sources (e.g. Koean JoongAng Daily). A brief Google search of these surgeons also indicates that they have CVs as impressive as Dr. Kim's. (I only spent a few minutes to dig up these examples, and I don't even have the ability to search in other languages!) Wikipedia should not be a collection of human interest stories culled from news outlets. Mention of a person in reliable sources is necessary to prove notability, but mention in reliable sources does not mean that a person is notable. Location (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With regard to Steve Pearlman and The New York Times article, I agree that it does not establish that he is notable. The article is written by Pearlman himself. The Central Asia Online source, if taken in conjunction with sources of similarity quality coverage about Edgar Biemer, establishes notability. I believe likewise with Joo Kwon and The Korean Herald source. Most biographical newspaper articles can be dismissed as "human interest stories culled from news outlets". Such an opinion is not supported by Notability and Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My opinion is not that newspaper articles containing biographical information should necessarily be dismissed as human interest stories, but rather that the notability of an individual should not depend on one or two human interest stories. In this case, the article appears promotional and gives no indication of why Kim is anything other than a run-of-the-mill plastic surgeon (i.e. there is no assertion of notability). This is why the GNG states that coverage is a presumption and not a guarantee of notability. The fact that it is relatively easy to find examples like Kim - the Pearlman article would be an RS as it is a first-person interview - refutes the assertion that "few doctors in Kenneth Kim's field have received enough coverage to pass [WP:BASIC]". Location (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the "presumption of notability" differs from mine. I believe that the general notability guideline supersedes subject specific notability guidelines. The distinction between the above list of sources about Kenneth Kim and the source you provided about Steve Pearlman is simple. Kim's articles were written by journalists. The Steve Pearlman article is not an interview. It was written by him (the byline contains only his name). To compare the degree to which each establishes notability is comparing apples and oranges. I draw your attention to WP:NOTPAPER. That a number of plastic surgeons have received significant coverage in reliable sources does not mean that the encyclopedia must delete those some consider to be "run-of-the-mill". Run-of-the-mill, an essay, does not determine the inclusion or exclusion of topics on Wikipedia. Notability guidelines and content policies do. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per CAB's source-checking from the previous AfD. Nothing appears to have changed in any material way since that AfD such that my own opinion would change. Hardly a slam dunk, but this individual appears to pass WP:GNG. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources seem insignificant or just public relations material, as per DGG. There is no evidence that the subject is anything more than a run of the mill physician Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC).
 * http://www.drkennethkim.com/_pdf/W21-Dream.pdfWebCite
 * http://www.drkennethkim.com/_pdf/kim_korea_times.pdfWebCite
 * http://www.drkennethkim.com/_pdf/Hmag.pdfWebCite

Kenneth Kim was also covered by a TV station affiliated with the Korean Times; see http://ktan.koreatimes.com/home/view.php?code=20110301&seq=07&page=5WebCite. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources above are self-published promotional material and so are not acceptable secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC).
 * I disagree with your assertions on both counts but accept that we will not be able to convince each other. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2012 (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.