Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kim
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
— User:Mael, 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:IMP (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)