Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seung Chan 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  13:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Seung Chan Kim

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable by WP:NACADEMIC Bon courage (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Frankly, as the nominator, have you read *all* the sources already in the article (before nomination)? And, have you read most (if not all) the sources in the article’s history that had been removed from the page? Plus, have you read the sources in the person’s Wikipedia articles in Korean and Japanese as well? I suppose you don’t know Korean and finding sources might be difficult, but reading the existing sources with the help of machine translation should be the basics right? I would say I’ve read most of them. This is not about how good one can find sources, it’s just about time and willingness. And I believe it’s required before nominating an article for deletion. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. See WP:BEFORE. Hence the deletion nomination. This person is not sufficiently notable for an article so far as I can see. If you can show otherwise, please do so. Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have read them all, I wonder why you didn’t notice this (about how his discovery “surprised the world”:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160213045645/http://vip.mk.co.kr/newSt/news/news_view.php?t_uid=20&c_uid=410851&sCode=21
 * which I cited below. It’s in the article now. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don’t think we need WP:MEDRS to establish notability, since others are more interested in removing than finding them, here’s a good start:
 * Though I consider doing this (is becoming) a time sink. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC); -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure whether I’m going to contribute anymore to a time sink created by others; as I’ve already done much work and WP:NEXIST, but what I said is considered “imagined”. Why do I care? Why do I care who die from cancer, Alzheimer’s, COVID, etc., earlier or later? Everyone will die someday anyway. Who cares. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC); 20:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Hankyoreh (significant coverage)
 * -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * About this book: “This book covers the principles of advanced 3D fabrication techniques, stem cells and biomaterials for neural engineering. Renowned contributors cover topics such as neural tissue regeneration, peripheral and central nervous system repair, brain-machine interfaces ... “
 * Chapter 3: Engineering Neuronal Patterning and Defined Axonal Elongation In Vitro 3.9 Magnetic Applications 3.9.1 Magnetic Fields First paragraph. He laid the foundation.
 * -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NACADEMICS #1, WP:ANYBIO #2 -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ” 5.2.3. Patents filed on treatment strategies ... Covid-19 Suitable Triple Knockout Dnai oligomer remedy was developed by Kim seung chan, which contains the single strand DNA coupled with three parts and transported by liposome to remove the virus genome.”
 * 
 * 
 * -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ” 5.2.3. Patents filed on treatment strategies ... Covid-19 Suitable Triple Knockout Dnai oligomer remedy was developed by Kim seung chan, which contains the single strand DNA coupled with three parts and transported by liposome to remove the virus genome.”
 * 
 * 
 * -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I can’t search for sources in Korean so will reconsider if anyone finds anything decent, but on present showing notability is clearly not demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kim appears to still be a student, too early in their career to disentangle their contributions from their academic advisors', and in this case it's complicated by the existence of at least three other people named Seung-Chan Kim or Seungchan Kim, publishing moderately-well-cited works in different topics. The "talent award" cited in our article is for a research paper published as first author while Kim was a high school student at Seoul Science High School ; that's an impressive accomplishment but not enough for WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He has long history of contribution in biomagnetism. See magnetogenetics page, which I recently added his work, group with three people (W Im, ST Lee, SC Kim) studying quite early in 2012. The research materials seem earlier to be in 2007 and patened at the same time. Even celebrities who are students and younger Song Yoo-geun remains prominent. Why should Seung Chan Kim should be a target? He already has a Ph.D. and over 30 years old. 188.169.108.174 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have sources (links to references / reliable websites) please post them here. Don’t be discouraged though some sources you added to the article had been deleted. People can always find a reason to do that. Post the links here, so that everyone can see them. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And the language of the source does not matter. Just post it. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term 'Notability' is subjective in this manner. This person has numerous accomplishments which is not underweight from other listees in Wikipedia. 188.169.108.174 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that subjective. See WP:NACADEMIC for notability criteria. Bon courage (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay I apologize for the strong words. Of course it has certain standards. Thank you. 188.169.108.174 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @ 188.169.108.174, besides WP:NACADEMIC, there are many other standards such as WP:ANYBIO#1 (awards) and #2, WP:BASIC, etc. Wikipedia welcome new content. Just don’t believe it blindly when someone tells you a subject doesn’t meet any ONE standard and therefore should not has its own article. Similarly, don’t just believe blindly when someone tells you they are improving the article “in the usual way” when they revert your edits outright. It’s in violation of WP:PRESERVE. They should’ve tagged or tried to fix the potential problem first (unless it’s serious problem involving copyright, libels, etc.) IMO, “experienced users” doesn’t mean much here. Yes some of them are very reasonable; and know and follow policies very well. But for the others, it’s just the opposite. So always check for yourself. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Holy WP:BLUD. Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think explaining our policies in greater detail to our new user is a problem :) -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NACADEMIC toobigtokale (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, WP:NACADEMICS#2, WP:NEXIST, WP:BASICS and WP:HEY. The person is a recipient of the highly prestigious national level academic award Talent Medal of Korea in 2009 (“Between 2008 and 2013, this award was the Talent Medal of Korea bestowed by the President of the Republic of Korea with a post-nominal (KTM) and Presidential Medal.”) It’s awarded to scientists and inventors (not for academic performance as a student) by the president so should satisfy WP:NACADEMICS#2
 * Maeil Business Newspaper
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160213045645/http://vip.mk.co.kr/newSt/news/news_view.php?t_uid=20&c_uid=410851&sCode=21 (Machine translation by worldlingo.com)


 * I remember very clearly that I had watched the news on TV (yep, TV ... I loved it so much when I was young :) mentioning his discovery about magnetic field changing the orientation of neurite outgrowth. That was reported as a *very important* discovery back in 2009, and that’s why I still remember it.


 * Further, finding sources in Korean and posting links of the translated pages won’t be easy for most of us who participate in this discussion (I did find some sources, but it’s not easy as I don’t know Korean. What makes things more complicated is that most Korean sites seems to be blocking the script from Google translate (probably because they don’t want their content crawled by bots). Also, the English name of the person has many variations (e.g., SeungChan Kim, SC Kim, Seung-Chan Kim, S-C Kim, Seung Chan Kim, S. C. Kim, Kim SeungChan, Kim Seung-Chan, Kim Seung Chan, S. Kim, etc.); and, there are *many* Korean called Kim. I tend to WP:AGF and believe in our Korean-speaking users (and many of them have edited the page as seen from the page history). The person’s discovery is very important to the fields of neuroregeneration, precision medicine in oncology, etc., not to mention his other achievements and awards. So again, keep. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC); edited 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The person’s discovery is very important to the fields of neuroregeneration &larr; is it? Are there any WP:MEDRS? As for the medal, it seems in the years it was issued, they had an annual quota of 50 to hand to high-schoolers, so that's not exactly 'highly prestigious'; that would be something more like the Korea Science Award. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are talking about biography and notability. Not everything needs MEDRS. I won’t mind if others can take the time to find more sources though. Btw, please note WP:NEXIST. Further, it’s a national post-nominal (KTM) and Presidential Medal. Someone has already added KTM next to Kim’s name in the article. This also indicates that it’s a very important award for Korean. Moreover, I think (and per WP:NACADEMICS#2) age is not a problem. And I don’t think any unimportant discovery will be reported in the TV news as “first of its kind”. Thanks and regards, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not everything needs MEDRS, but claims that something is biomedically significant could be shown to be by such sources. Where is the impact this work has made (open question)? Also note per WP:NPROF: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1". So that medal doesn't mean anything towards notability. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you mind giving WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE a solid read? Please don’t take things personal. If you are challenging the reliability of the TV station at my place, or you are challenging my good faith, I’d better stay out of this (especially when you are deleting content and refs in the article during our discussion; btw, please note that MEDRS does *not* strictly prohibit the use of primary source). Thanks, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC); edited 18:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NEXIST sure, that's basic. But notability resides in actual sources, not imagined ones. There is no reason why an article should not be improved in the usual way while at AfD. Bon courage (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the word imagined. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Bon courage (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you are just citing the last sentence of the policy? (And “seldom persuasive” means “imagined”?) Let me cite it in full then:
 * “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.
 * The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.
 * Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.”
 * But *even if* sources already exist in the article, people tend to ignore them (or even remove them) instead of trying to find better sources based on the already existing ones (which contain keywords and so on). So, forget about it. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:PROF. Single medal won in high school does not indicate long-term notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a national post-nominal award bestowed by the President of Korea, not because of his academic performance in high school. Other world-class athletes also got that award too. The situation maybe a bit complicated and finding more sources in English maybe difficult though, as the criteria (and likely name) of the award has changed in 2014. Anyway, there are other awards that the person has received. Please see: Seung Chan Kim, all these IMO would satisfy WP:ANYBIO. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC); 17:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I've read through the Maeil Business News source and I remain unconvinced. Both the subject and the event (publishing the paper in high school) lack any lasting coverage. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see Seung Chan Kim which satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2016 secondary book source (lasting coverage) about his discovery:
 * -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not yet proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC).
 * Delete Notability not yet proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2024 (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.