Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ki Whang


 * 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. Not impressed with some WP:PUFFERY and format, but WP:N appears establshed and referenced ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim Ki Whang

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Kim Ki Whang lacks notability. Does not meet wikipedia biographical standards. See A7. Mephisto Panic (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  — Janggeom (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

*Weak Delete I think some of the claims made might show notability. The problem is I can't find independent sources for them. Astudent0 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:MANOTE. The article claims that the subject contributed significantly to the development of Tae Kwon-Do, but I have not yet found references to support this. Janggeom (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm changing my vote based on the new sources found. BTW, Thardman22, AGF. Astudent0 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I commented in the DRV for this that there was a Washington Post obituary that might constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. I've blown $3.95 on the obituary to find that it contains two sentences, the first of which says he died. No delete or keep !vote from me, just a note to say I'm no longer confident of this article's rescue worthiness. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion history: please see Deletion review/Log/2010 June 7.— S Marshall T/C 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An internet search is difficult because the subject was mainly active in the pre-internet period. We need to decide if Black Belt Magazine is a reliable source.  If so, there's his obituary in the issue for Jan 1994, which is certainly in-depth coverage.  The Jan 1970 issue contains only a couple of mentions, but the Jan 1977 issue also has what I would call in-depth coverage.  However, I'm aware of no other sources, and the search is frustrating because there also appears to be a physician by the same name who's published some scholarly articles.— S Marshall  T/C 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was amused to read from his obituary that this is apparently the man who taught Chuck Norris to fight. :)— S Marshall  T/C 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*Delete I don't find sources that show he's notable. The aforementioned obituary in Black Belt doesn't show it--especially when it has claims like the Chuck Norris one. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, if Black Belt Magazine is a reliable source, then there's easily enough to show evidence of notability. The obituary says:  ... Among his better-known students were ... Chuck Norris ... Pat Johnson ... (etc.) ... his All-American Invitational Karate Championships ran for 25 years and was one of the most prestigious martial arts events on the East Coast.  Notability is not inherited from Chuck Norris to Kim, so that in itself is insufficient, and the All-American Invitational Karate Championships don't appear notable either; but the obituary goes on to say that Kim ... served as Chairman of the US Olympic Taekwondo Team in 1988. Besides that, notability is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources.  The coverage is certainly significant, and there is more than one instance of coverage, widely-spaced in time.  Therefore if the source is reliable, then Kim is unquestionably notable.  The question hangs on whether the source meets WP:RS.— S Marshall  T/C 12:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd say Mkativerata's findings pretty much confirm non-notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments at deletion review, copied here: Is there a reliable source that is actually about him, not just mentioning him in passing? The article was almost completely unsourced and had the tone of a eulogy, rather than an encyclopedia article. (A lot of it actually reads like it was copied from an obituary ... "And that is how it should be, according to a kindly man with a subtle sense of humor who survived and prospered through a lifetime ..." doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article.) --B (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster Kim is frequently referenced in their pedigree of study by people who rose to prominence in the time-frame of 1960 to 1980 or so. Notably, Albert Cheeks and Mike Warren, not to mention Jim Roberts Jr. Thardman22 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Preserve and/or continue research It seems that one horn of the debate is whether Black Belt Magazine is a reputable source. Please see the Black Belt Magazine site's Archive page The 54th Issue of Black Belt was Dated June 1968 (which mentions a tournament organized by GM Kim). As a monthly, this would suggest that "BB mag" has been around since 1965 at least. I don't know if anyone will accept the inference that a publication with a 45-year run is "verifiable". Also, did nobody bother to read any of the references cites on the suggested "revision to keep"? For instance, notable grandmaster Kim Soo gives significant detail on Kim's life and career in Korea and subsequent importation of Korean Martial Arts to the US, in his document (PDF) "Sabang-Kwon Hyung: Master Kim Ki-Whang's Legacy" (Soo, Kim (dictated to McLain, Robert))? The references on that revision may provide the independent and verifiable resources needed.

Additional References: please remember than in the 1960s-1980s Koreans in America put family name last, thus "Kim Ki Whang" becomes "Ki Whang Kim". Chronology of Tang Soo Do in the U.S.A. "1963, Ki Whang Kim comes to US(Washington D.C.) as Chairmen of TSDMDK in US appointed by KJN Whang Kee". Please note that "TSDMDK" is "Tang Soo Do, Moo Duk Kwan", a very specific subset of Korean Martial arts and a specific school of promulgation of those arts. Seen in this context, with GM Kim being sent to the US as a result of political changes in Korea, and at the behest of Moo Duk Kwan grandmaster Hwang Kee, the notability of "Ki Whang Kim" (Kim Ki Whang) in history of Korean Martial Arts in the USA becomes more apparent. I should also mention that my position is biased as I was a student at his Rockville, MD (USA)_studio. Yet I believe that despite any perception of personal bias, verifiable sources I have provided and will strive to additionally provide, should overcome any perception of bias. Regards, Thardman22 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional to the point of "philosophy section irrelevant": from What is Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan? "First it is important to understand that Soo Bahk Do is the Art and Moo Duk Kwan is the style. Soo Bahk Do is the technical side, and the Moo Duk Kwan is the philosophical side of "Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan." Thus, Kim Ki Whang's leadership of Moo Duk Kwan in USA is of paramount importance in his role in promulgation of specific aspects of Korean Martial Art to USA. Although GM ("Grandmaster") Kim was a combat master of Tang Soo Do military style, he adhered to the dictum (see reference, immediately above) "Learning fighting techniques without a strong philosophy is to burden society with more dangerous people [...] We use Soo Bahk Do to realize our full potential and emphasize "Virtue in action" demonstrating courage, discipline, confidence and humility through our sincere efforts in training and our behavior towards others. " Thus, GM Kim's philosophical approach to martial arts training isn't just relevant, it's fundamental to the article, and to the history of the man, and to his teachings. He developed exceptional capacity to fight... and also promoted calm judgement and a preference for peace. Contrast and compare to other sensei teaching comparable arts specifically promoted to pugilists. Regards, Thardman22 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Additional Notability: please see YouTube video United States Naval Academy Karate-do Team at timestamp 6:19 "Passing on Ki Whang Kim's Stick". US Naval Academy Instructor Master John Critzos II evidently considers GM Kim Ki Whang to be "notable", at least sufficiently so as to make him part of a ceremony of the martial-arts department of US Naval Academy Annapolis. I suggest that disputants in this debate may wish to contact him via e-mail and accept his opinion on Kim Ki Whang as "authoritative". Also to be considered potentially 'authoritative and verifiable" would be the US Naval Academy Karate-Do Team website detailing "pedigree" and lineage of martial arts instructors and styles: [...] Toyama Kanken, founded the Shudokan at Nihon University in Japan. Toyama believed in paience, and espoused the concept that if one's hand goes first, he should withhold his temper. If one's temper goes first, he should withhold his hand. It was he who taught Korean-born Ki Whang Kim, who eventually became the first non-Japanese captain at the Japanese institution. His heritage adds a Korean mix to our karate-do style, which has already been influenced by the Japanese and Chinese tradition. Ki Whang Kim then transferred his knowledge to John Critzos II, who established the Naval Academy program in 1992 and has continued to train and develop Midshipmen. I would think that the fact that GM Kim is regarded highly as the sensei of the primary instructor for the US Naval Academy, would speak to his "notability". Additionally, this is secondary verification to other sources, that Kim Ki Whang was instructed by Shudokan GM Toyama Kanken at Nihon University Japan. Furthermore, this speaks to the philosophy section, of preparation and capacity for violence set alongside with intentions for restraint of violence. I urge strong consideration to preserving a Wikipedia article on the history and legacy of Ki Whang Kim, or maybe the US Naval Academy martial artists club will be convinced to also chime in and offer reasons to leave the article intact. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thardman22 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is still with a lack of reliable sources. John Critzos was his student so he's not an independent source nor is the web page of the organization Kim was involved in.Astudent0 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Black Belt Magazine isn't a credible source? Kim Soo isn't a dependent or descendant source, not associated with Kim other than as peers in the field? Also, I'm not citing Critzos as a source, I was citing the US Naval Academy presentation on YouTube. That's not a reliable nor verifiable source? Thardman22 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You cited Critzos as a source when you said "Critzos II evidently considers GM Kim Ki Whang to be "notable"." Youtube is certainly not a reliable source.  Black Belt Magazine isn't necessarily a reliable source because many things in it are submitted by interested parties.  For example, the other day I was looking at a cited source in BB and it turned out it was a list of instuctors, but anyone could submit a bio.  I've seen too many non-independent articles in BB to always trust it as an independent source. Astudent0 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You declare that YouTube isn't a reliable source. But this is arguable: what of reliable sources accessible through YouTube? Clearly the origin of the video posted to YouTube is US Naval Academy. Are you suggesting that the US Naval Academy suddenly become incredible if their production is distributed via YouTube? That's like saying that CNN isn't credible because a direct reporting segment was copied to YouTube. It's like saying that archives of real-time broadcast are not credible because they are archives, and not vaporware broadcast. It's like saying recordings aren't credible because they aren't a broadcast that nobody remember seeing. You are splitting hairs, so to speak, in a very silly way.
 * The problem with the Naval Academy source is that it's still coming through his student's orgainization--hardly an independent source. The articles mentioned farther below, however, make a good case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you appear to be presenting a determination to disallow Black Belt Magazine as a credible source. Yet you don't offer any source that you could consider credible; you simply deny that Black Belt Magazine could be a credible source. Offer a definitive alternative, please. What will you accept? Will you accept ANYTHING as a credible source in this discussion? Or will you deny that it is even possible, in this pre-internet time-frame, to have any credible source at all? What will you accept? Or are you simply only about deny deny deny? For this discussion to be reasonable, and not a travesty, there must be a source you can accept. If you can accept no source as credible, this discussion is pointless, and I declare that you are Kim Jong-Il and demand my five guineas. (British TV Humor) Thardman22 (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: A useful addition to a neglected area on our encyclopedia - notability seems clear within his area. Being subject of published biography - with ISBN (even if shared) might be enough. - Korean Martial Artists: Kim Ki Whang, Sang Kee Paik, Tae-Hong Choi, Yoon Byung-in, Books, Llc ISBN-10: 1156885752 ISBN-13: 978-1156885758  (Msrasnw (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
 * That particular book is a print-on-demand title, very recently issued, and I've been unable to locate any information about the publisher.— S Marshall T/C 00:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - is it one of the funny books made from Wikipedia articles? - (If so sorry) (Msrasnw (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Have you any proof that this is the case? Or are you just wasting people's time with frivolous and ill-advised attempts at comedy? If so, why did you bring it up in the first place? But this discussion is getting far afield. If people are willing to spend U$3.99 for a HighBeam account to read a two-line Washington Post obituary, perhaps they'd be interested in spending a comparable amount to research to telephone the few remaining living humans who are themselves notable, who could testify to the notability of Kim Ki Whang.


 * What Is Necessary to Determine Notability?: This is an honest question. Clearly I am biased, and as clearly, others also seem to be biased to declare this article to be deleted. Tell me: What will suffice? I don't want to waste my time, or your time, pointing to sources that won't be believed. What do you need? If it's simply the case that some of you won't accept anything, tell me, I won't waste my time, you can take up the issue with people other than myself. Or they will take up the issue with you. We don't want to do this in any way other than through acceptable standards of scholarly research. Yet we believe that the life and career of Kim Ki Whang is in fact both notable and formative of the Korean Martial arts in the US especially in the 1960-1980s timeframe. What do you need to accept this article, or some revision of it, as a verified and scholarly reference? Please understand that the audience to your arguments may be larger, and more interested, than you would easily believe. Please be specific, and please assure us that if we satisfy your demands -- however ridiculous or extravigant -- we shall have a permanent article.
 * Wikipedia's definition of "notability" can be boiled down to "evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources." Note that "significant coverage" doesn't mean that we have to find a whole article or whole book-chapter about Kim.  It only means we have to find some kind of coverage that's more than just a passing mention.  "Reliable sources" are sources that are independent of Kim, and have some form of editorial control or oversight, so we can presume that the facts in the source have been checked by someone.  In practice, "reliable souces" (plural) could mean just two sources, and one of them (Black Belt Magazine) is already noted above.  I don't think anyone will show that Black Belt Magazine is not reliable. So the upshot is that we have to find one more reliable source.  The one Msrasnw found could be sufficient, if Books, LLC is a reputable publisher.  It will not be sufficient if Books, LLC are a vanity publisher, if they're the property of the book's author, or if there's no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking.  Alternatively, we could dig up some material on Kim in a print source.  If you can find such a source, please tell us the ISBN, the publisher, and the page number.— S Marshall  T/C 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Other refs?: Is this listed anywhere?
 * Corcoran, John. "Memorial for Grandmaster Ki Whang Kim (1920-1993)." Inside Tae Kwon Do, 3:1 (Feb. 1994), pp. 56-59. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Burdick, Dakin (1997) Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Volume 6 Number 1 - 1997. Taekwondo's Formative Years  Has stuff from the Corcoran article - including "study karatedo at Nihon Universityin Tokyo, where he captained the team and was nicknamed “Typhoon.” " (Msrasnw (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes. The Journal of Asian Martial Arts is a proper publication with editorial oversight that meets WP:RS, and the coverage in the article you linked is more than trivial.  I think that's sufficient.— S Marshall  T/C 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Significant coverage in two reliable sources is proven here and here, and this decisively refutes the notability argument.— S Marshall  T/C 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional Reference: US Taekwondo Grandmasters Society 4th Annual Hall of Fame Awards, 2009, "Pioneer Award" section detailing career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thardman22 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've crossed out my earlier vote. I believe that the latest sources mentioned do show notability.  I also believe the article needs a significant rewrite, but that's not an AfD issue.  For what it's worth, I agree with Astudent0's earlier comments about notability and Black Belt magazine.  I too don't view everything in Black Belt as reliable.  My personal views on sources and notability--the internet makes it easier to find info, but independently written articles and books are certainly valid (perhaps even preferable). Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Basically per S Marshall: significant coverage in at worst two independent reliable sources, so appears to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: relisted to obtain more comments, especially from earlier participants in this AfD, on the sources pointed out by S Marshall, i.e., and . T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Of course I would say this. And AStudent0: thanks for the AGF. Folks, please see the sources mentioned above under "keep". Many seem to be of acceptable type. If notability was the main issue here, I think that notability has been established by persons other than myself. Are there any other issues? Clean up is also a good idea. For example individual claims might need to be individually cited. Note that there are perhaps 4 to 6 "varafiable and notable" sources but all of them contain a wealth of information that covers only a limited number of aspects. The article as originally written attempted to combine those aspects and sources with a global re-write. I realize that my anecdotal recollections are not considered evidentiary for the purposes of wikipedia. Perhaps the general tone isn't what is preferred. If anyone else wants to handle a re-write to improve tone, please do. Yet again I argue for the retention of some article on Kim Ki Whang. Regards, Thardman22 (talk) 02:37, 16 June 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.