Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence 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  -- Samir 01:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Kim

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

notability not convincingly asserted in this WP:BLP:
 * coverage in independent sources: only about one event (pledge to fund student entrepreneurs );
 * nomination for a student award which accepts self-nominations is not notable;
 * the article is somewhat promotional but this is not enough for deletion. Antipastor (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dissecting that, I see: Notability not convincingly asserted — so what? Assertion of notability is a CSD criterion.  It has nothing to do with AfD.  At AfD, you have to prove notability. Coverage in independent sources — a better criticism.  Many of this article's sources are, frankly, crap; press releases and the like.  But the Straits Times is a reliable source and, as well as the story you correctly acknowledge, there is a second story in the Straits Times including significant coverage of him. One event — well, arguably, it's all one event, even though the newspaper stories are separated by three months.  If so, it's a very long event involving an awful lot of money. BLP — a very fashionable thing to emphasize in deletion discussions, but actually Wikipedia's BLP policy is about removing unsourced negative information about living people.  You are certainly welcome to remove unsourced content from the article.  Deletion seems to me to be going much too far. A non-notable award — yeah, I agree.  Kim is notable for his significant coverage in reliable sources, but not notable for his student award. Somewhat promotional is, as you correctly say, not a reason for deletion. Overall, after analysing the sources, it's a trim but keep from me.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think a press announcement for a future funding plan is enough to establish notability per WP:BIO, relating to the criterion of significant coverage in independent sources. As a side note, I did not remove any content (except spam links) even unsourced, for the benefit of this debate, since not much would be left. But if a convincing argument is made for keeping, I would suggest those interested in keeping the article make this effort to improve it :). Antipastor (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The Straits Times story is sufficient to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete announcing that you intend to donate USD$2K as scholarships and having $71K to invest in student ideas (not donate) is NN. Owning a company with revenue of less than $750K is also NN. Josh Parris 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete student awards only. These are almost never notable- We dont even accept the Rhodes Scholarship & none of these come remotely near it. When he has a professional career, all of this will be one line in it.     DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't help wondering if the above two have read the sources cited above? Their answers are not based on a critical analysis of them.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)



Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I'm surprised that the guy who wrote this article about himself didn't include what he had for breakfast.  Violates WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and any notion of general modesty.  This is the fervid product of a particularly horrible WP:SPA that has been trying to promote this advertisement on all sorts of WP pages.  It's ironic that such a self-involved, self-promoting entity would claim notability for intending to help others at some vague time in the future!  Just terrible.  Delete at once. Qworty (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2009 (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.