Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Hae-sun


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Kim Hae-sun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject's Notability, Looks like a criminal resume. NANExcella (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , What did you find in Korean language sources? Sam Sailor 18:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My Dear friend Sam Sailor, i found Kim Hae-sun a criminal and the article looks like a criminal's resume. NANExcella (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I can't imagine that an article on a triple serial killer from the UK or US would be deleted. Clearly notable. Clear WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot verify this. I ran a Proquest news archive search on "Kim Hae-sun"  With a crime committed in 2000, running the name of a criminal always brings up sources IF the crime was committed in a country that uses the Latin alphabet, and it very often works for crimes committed in countries using other alphabets.  Especially highly developed countries like South Korea.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - per WP:GNG and good faith. I agree with E.M.Gregory, but sometimes I guess these kind of cases can either become very discussed in media and other times not. But for that matter the less discussed case is not necessarily less notable. I think this is an article that should be kept for now based on article quality. And revisited in 6 months tims.BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2018 (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.