Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sungsu 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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty ■ 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sungsu Kim
Non-notable academic bio. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. &#126;MDD4696 02:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:BIO. Page fails to set him apart from other college professors. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 04:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as run-of-the-mill academic.  dbtfz talk 04:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete nn Bucketsofg 05:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. --Ter e nce Ong 06:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Very interesting. Delete philosopher becaue he is not famous or universally known . Keep article on the every single episode of Buffy the Vanpire Slayer, on the other hand!! I'm beginning to get the basic idea around here: the name should be changed perhaps to Populo-pedia or frivolo-pedia.. What nonsense. Keep or get rid of Buffy and all the other crap that you wouldn't find in any self-respecting encyclopedia except the Populo-pedia.--Lacatosias 09:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do remain civil. If you'd like others to address your concerns, please find a more appropriate place on Wikipedia, but not here. Thank you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Where are such issues discussed?--Lacatosias 18:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as inclusion of academics, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. For Buffy, I don't know.  In this case, I say Delete: according to my quick search, this person has barely any publications or citations; this would be forever a stub or a duplication of his CV. Mangojuice 18:53, 15 March 2006 (UC)
 * Yes, to be clear, I'm not nearly as concerned with keeping Sungsu Kim (or every single academic philosopher) in the Wikipedia, as I am in getting Buffy, the Simpsons and other such popular nonsense off of it. I am fundamnetally an extreme deletionist, on other words. There's far too mcuh crap on here. This problem needs to be addressed. In the context of all this crap, I begin to thing it's not inappropriate to add a vanity page for each of my hundreds of relatives. Until I find out how to delete Buffy, I still say userfy so I can illustarte and discuss some serious deficiencies that I have found in the selection process for the inclusion of articles in the Wikipedia.--Lacatosias 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree (at least in part) with your views on popular culture (I think it's OK to have a concise article on Buffy, but not a whole family of articles on every detail, character and episode), keeping this bio to make a point is not the correct way to go about discussing this change. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 17:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Compu  terjoe  19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy --Lacatosias 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC) so that I can attempt to transform it into a Buffy the Vampire article. BTW, I wasn't even contacted on this.--Lacatosias 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone can add something that makes him stand out among his academic peers -- Samir  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]]   (the scope)  02:13, 12 March 2006 (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.