Deletion of James Kim

Comment: He was on international television on three separate shows for 5 or more years.  He clearly has a fan following. The nomination for deletion is clearly from ignorance of the topic or field in which James Kim was dominant. As per  the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.  If James Kim is to be deleted then the following people should also be deleted from Wikipedia: Leo Laporte, Patrick Norton, Chris Pirillo, John C. Dvorak, Adam Sessler, Kevin Rose, Sarah Lane, Megan Morrone, Jessica Corbin, Catherine Schwartz, Bill Rafferty, Morgan Webb, James Kim, Jim Louderback, Martin Sargent, Michaela Pereira, Erica Hill, Victoria Recaño, Sumi Das, Chi-Lan Lieu, Chris Leary, Dan Huard, Brendan Moran, Lauren Fielder, Robert Heron (TechTV)|Robert Heron, Kate Botello,  SuChin Pak, Roger Chang, Tom Merritt, Laura Swisher and Scott Herriott -- all of which are television personalities of international fame
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: With all due respect, I find this nomination for deletion to be self-evidently absurd in the extreme. The emotional components and memorializing that you cite are not included in the James Kim article, so I am unsure why you cite them as reasons for deletion. James Kim and the events surrounding his disappearance and death had focused media attention and headlines not only nationwide throughout the United States, but throughout the world as well. To suggest this article should be deleted means that articles about Eizabeth Smart or Nicole Brown Simpson should be deleted; neither of them remotely qualified as noteworthy people under Wikipedia guidelines until the media focused on the unique events they were involved in. For a person to be noteworthy '''that individual does *NOT* have to be noteworthy prior to the circumstances in which the individual garnered media attention''', furthermore '''Wikipedia contains *NO* guidelines regarding an article's deletion or relevance merely because its details make you "nauseous"''' and finally '''Wikipedia has *NO* guidelines requiring that an article pertaining to an individual must contain some usefulness regarding lessons to others or survivial skills'''. None of the reasons you have given regarding this article's potential deletion conform to Wikipedia standards and rules, and until your reasons for deletion conform to those standards, they must necessarily be considered irrelevant. James Kim qualifies as a noteworthy person under  guidelines, and his article conforms to those guidelines. Therefore, under the circumstances, and provided that you have so far given no reasons for deletion that are relevant to Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion or deletion, I am bound to recommend this article be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: He does not meet . Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Also per the essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we do not have to have an article for everything that is in today's newspaper.  A lot of similar news stories over a few days does not make this likely to pass the "hundred year test."  It is tragic that Mr. Kim died, but hundreds of thousands of people die every year just as tragically, and they do not require Wikipedia article either. We do not create articles for every person killed in a plane crase, or who drowns, or who gets electricuted. He was apparently not notable enough for an encyclopedia article before he got lost and died of exposure, and that death is not of particularly enduring notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: One could argue that an article was warranted before his disappearance, but sufficient information about the man was not available to those who would write it. If his career was significant enough and he passes , he should stay. There certainly isn't a lack of interest in information about him. For what it's worth, I'd be quicker to keep this article than the one for, say, James Jordan (basketball)|Michael Jordan's father, which is there pretty much solely because of his untimely death (after passing an AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Passes . I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few people left in the world who meet or exceed the  guidelines who don't have articles. Therefore, to say that James Kim wasn't notable because he didn't already have an article is a very silly argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: More than meets  as Blacksun pointed out. On a quasi-related note, a "Media Coverage" and/or a "Public Response" section should be added to the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per |Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. This event made all the major news services and he was involved TechTV and appeared on camera so he was not non notable in his lifetime
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Nomination shows inexperience with general feeling in afds, and may not be very well-reasoned (but jeez, is there a really need to pile on the newbie nominator like an angry mob with a ton of bricks? () he/she's not even a SPA), but I have a long-standing position on the suitability of articles of short-lived news value such as this. I concur with the nominator's basic argument, and
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: meets  and he has a lot of media attention. He was long notable before his death
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: If you didn't look at the talk page, which is what my comment was addressing in part, then perhaps you should try to read it before attempting a rebuttal.  If you had, then you might understand my statement about  a blog (i.e. that people are gathering on the talk page do ''exactly'' what bloggers do on pages dedicated to that pasttime: chat and exchange opinions).  Your opinion based on the intentions behind the creation of  a memorial are moot.  This isn't a memorial.  Light a candle; this isn't the place for people to, again, log in and commiserate which is ''exactly'' what the talk page is being used for.  Blog space.  As you mentioned the perceived intentions of Wiki's founders, so shall I.   states that one flaw in the current definions of "what is worth writing about" do not ''"explain the difference between items that are of lasting significance and items that are of fleeting interest"'', the obvious statement there being that '''items that are of fleeting interest don't belong in Wikipedia'''.  Your reaction is worth noting, but reactionary people should keep it to themselves; there's been enough of that in this case already
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:IMP)

Comment: Satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: and especially so on account of  - no pun intended
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: The policy #IINFO|Wikipedia isn't a memorial. is intented to exclude articles that are simply memorials to friends and relatives who are not otherwise notable. The article on James Kim does not fit in this category. James Kim would have been notable whether or not he died, by virtue of his decade of work in the tech media. He became more notable because of the circumstances surrounding him and his family in the last week of his life
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Notable, Verifiable, Not Original Research, state in Neutral POV, passes . Hey, don't knock the Deletionists. We aren't always deleting things, we just have a tendancy to have a stricter way of looking at an article (in-other-words, we have higher standards) :P
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: James Kim's facts should be kept. I believe based on the facts of his uncommon affect on the nation and world as a whole regarding the events the  rules allow for this listing to remain on Wikipedia. The facts about the affect of the world can be found on all international web sites
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: It's hard to know if he would have met  prior to Thanksgiving.  It would have been borderline at best.  As it stands he meets  now, but still barely.  Most of the non-trivial mentions all surround the single event (even if it took nearly 2 weeks for that event to pan out).  However, at this point in time I think it's too early to conclusively call this based on policy.  Wait 6 months and see how often this page is edited.  Wait a year and see if anyone remembers him for anything other than how he died. Wait a year and see if the focus of the article changes from his death to his accomplishments during life; then judge the article based on what it says about his life, not his death
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: your argument is basically "well, he got a ton of media coverage, but..."  which explicitly states that this is in compliance with . "no one had seen the subject as noteworthy until the news media placed so much focus on it." -- that's exactly how we determine what's noteworthy, and now that he's been judged such, we're good to write about it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)