Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kim (timeline of death)

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

James Kim (timeline of death)

Completely unnecessary. All incidents are already covered in James Kim. Timeline adds nothing. Creator admits to creating it to continue a discussion being had on a blog [1]and using this page to host discussion from there. From his own admission its also to host analysis from the same place. Violates WP:NOR. Crossmr 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Bwithh 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The page does have value. It is a fact that new stories reported that Kati Kim said the Kims took the right road, encountered a rock, and then backed up and took the wrong road. Having this objective information is helpful in understanding what happened. But whether Kati Kim's memory is accurate and whether that is in fact what happened is less clear. The difference between fact and uncertainly is not so clear in this case. And I would not be so sure that everything posted on the main acticle is factually true. Crossmr, as far as I know, you aren't the owner of Wikipedia. If some people want to share encyclopedic information off to the side and that does not interest you, then don't waste your time visiting that page. But please don't frustrate the efforts of others to document in detail, as completely and objectively as one can, what happened. Thank you. --Rob Zako 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  I never said I owned wikipedia. Information which is derived from original research and speculation isn't encyclopedia according to its policies. See WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOT for further clarification.--Crossmr 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, one purpose of the article is to assist research into what happened to James Kim. But it isn't true that "by definition" that makes the article itself original researc. The article is a timeline, i.e., a side entry to the entry about a newsworthy person who recently died. The side entry should stand on its own and should provide additional detail and information to those who are interested, for whatever purposes, beyond what is appropriate in the main article. Note that one standard definition of "encyclopedic" is "comprehensive in terms of information." But please consider the artcile on its own merits, and if there is POV or OR here, please indicate where. --Rob Zako 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  if the information isn't appropriate in the main article, its not appropriate for a side article. If you want to keep the information somewhere, take it back to the blog it came from and host it there.--Crossmr 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  What exactly is a "side entry?" As far as I can tell, this page is an article in its own right, just like Rubber or Iran. How can you say it's "ok" because it's supposedly "off to the side?" I don't get it. Tragic romance 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article's lead graf specifically states that it is for the purpose of reconstructing Kim's death which will almost by definition lead to original research. This information can be incorporated into the main article, provided it does not receive WP:Undue weight. MKoltnow 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete all but admits to being WP:OR. Danny Lilithborne 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely un-encyclopaedic level of detail. Even if you think this guy deserves an article in the first place. - fchd 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Self-admitted OR and even if it wasn't, it woudl be unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. Edison 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete everything that needs to be said can be contained in the main article. this level of detail is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If a forum wants to collobaratively speculate and research information about the death of James Kim, they can use any one many free web hosts to post up a page, but wikipedia is not such a web host. -- Whpq 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty evidently OR, and the timeline really doesn't add anything to the prose in the main article.--Kchase T 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is already an article on James Kim, and all this information is there, formatted or not. You can't just create an "alternate" article because you don't like the formatting on the main one, can you? Tragic romance 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - thoroughly annotated James Kim article covers it all, apparently, making this timeline article redundant. B.Wind 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep non-notable events do not get dozens of frontpage digg stories. unless however keven rose altered digg algorethm to give over-attention to his lost friend, but keven would never do that 72.36.251.234 06:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Despite this AfD, there's ongoing discussion at the main article's talk page as to whether the timeline ought to be included there. There are several enormous threads of dialogue and a straw poll at the bottom. Those who are interested, please read the relevant dialogue and register an opinion at the straw poll or elsewhere on the page. Thanks!--Kchase T 09:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what should we call this, newscruft? Why is any of this notable? There's an article about the family, that's more than enough, this timeline is taking trivia to the extreme. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:45, 17 December 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.