Deletion of James Kim

Comment: Article is tightly sourced and provides a biography of a person that has been in the news recently. It doesn't matter if the story disappears from the headlines in five days, this is perfectly within the scope of Wikipedia and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I didn't look at the talk page, but to me the article doesn't contain any morbid analysis. It's actually quite well written. I'm not sure what your point is about  a blog, since this has plenty of major non-internet media outlets. Similarly, the nom seems to be incorrect about  a memorial, as that section is really intended to prevent family members from creating vanity pages about dead relatives or lists of 9/11 or Iraq victims or such. The real concern, as usual, is notability.  ''used to'' have some line about treating coverage of one day's events as only one instance of media coverage, but I've got a sense that the fact this ordeal got stretched out over several days would provide just the loophole needed to keep the article. Excluding that consideration, which seems to be moot, he clearly meets 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)