Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Wan-seop


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kim Wan-seop

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very strange English, probably google-translated. Elmor (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment....so your reason for deletion is....? "strange English" isn't a reason for deletion. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - no evidence of notability and impossible to find anything relevant on Google (Kim is a very common name). Seems to be a minor dissident journalist. No references. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. BTW bad English isn't a relevant criterion for deletion. andy (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the things you mention is a speedy deletion criterion. Nor is it "impossible to find anything relevant on Google"; you can paste his Korean name into the Google News archive search box and find 161 articles about him, or you could click through to the Korean Wikipedia's article about him and note the number of citations the article has. None of the above steps require you to understand Korean, but merely to be willing to use the resources at your disposal. If you haven't even taken the step of looking to see whether sources exist about the man in the language of the country where he lived almost all his life, it's premature for you to jump to conclusions about whether or not he fails WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. cab (call) 04:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous reliable sources available. I added three newspaper articles about him to the Wikipedia article, for example. Will work more on the article later today. cab (call) 04:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Uncivil version of User:CaliforniaAliBaba's comments follows): It's an insult to me to have to lift my fingers even addressing this.  Get off your posterior and do a minuscule amount of work before wasting editors' time with this.  —   AjaxSmack   01:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Notability clearly demonstrated by CaliforniaAliBaba's work. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 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.