Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dong Hyun Choi

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, lack of reliable sources trumps all assertions. Fram (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Hyun Choi[edit]

I can't find any sources to suggest that this figure is notable. The article seems to be based on a personal website and is basically self-promotional material, possibly with a political motive. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive POV-pushing and zero verifiability. Near as I can tell behind all the theatrics on the article, he wanted to avoid mandatory military service, and in response, South Korea refused to issue him a passport. That doesn't make him Isang Yun or Song Du-yul; that makes him a draft dodger. He was going around the entire internet and spamming this on message boards last year [1][2][3], and now he's brought it to Wikipedia. Searching in Korean (I believe the spelling should be 최동현) for "Choe Dong-hyeon" England or "Choe Dong-hyeon" torture" gives a few hundred unrelated Ghits. cab (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Korean name is a common one, so if you google with it, you just would find "other notable figures with the same name. I can assure you that the person has absolutely zero notability.--Caspian blue 12:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several issues here.
1. For a country as closed to the outside world as North Korea lack of publicly accessible information is not uncommon, including Wikipedia, Jon In Chan, Choi Yong-kun (Category:North Korean people by occupation). For this Consider grouping them. After all any public information serves to inform which is what Wikipedia is about; an Educational Charity.
2. I actually phoned that British politician mediator's office (Jenny Tonge) and it confirmed that the Dong Hyun Choi’s case was indeed handled by her and he became a refugee. And by googling I could see that the subject's brother DongSuk Choi is indeed a chemistry graduate of Seoul National University (his publications). Like the case of Jon In Chan one can verify factuality on Dong Hyun Choi by speaking to the people n organizations named in the article.
3. Many wiki biographies are less notable, and Choi’s case has something worth noting - being a political refugee from South Korea in the West. That’s worthwhile keeping for unbiased public understanding of immigration n asylum issues and serves to inform the minority legal cases.
4. I question the viability n motifs of some of the Wikipedians who called for delete. The Wikipedia Article Deletion Policy states that anyone calling for deletion must declare vested subject interests. Looking at Wikipedia articles some of them have created, I am not sure whether deletion was called for with impartially. Also, to say Dong Hyun Choi is a military duty dodger, that is clearly as reference-lacking, sheer POV statement that this Wikipedian is trying to keep Wikipedia free of. For what Wikipedia is for and aims to achieve, I think we all agree that informing and assessing be unbiased and done in a mature way, and not name calling or jumping to conclusions, whether a state/person is perceived as democratic or military rule. On these grounds, not only on the education/public informing front but also on reference n verifiability front, it looks OK. Keep the article along with other OK North Korean people pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoland83 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC) — Yoland83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I took the liberty of formatting your post. In response to your points:

By policy, Wikipedia articles should contain only information that has been published in reliable secondary sources such as newspapers, academic journals, or books from reputable houses, not information coming from a personal website. The fact that information about North Korea is not widely available on the internet has nothing to do with this case. Choi resided in Europe for a long time, and yet no European newspaper has written about him.
Calling a legislator's office to confirm non-published information is an example of what we call original research. Information obtained in this manner cannot be inserted into articles. And the fact that his brother graduated from SNU has nothing to do with whether Choi himself should have a Wikipedia article or not. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not factuality, but rather compliance with the General Notability Guideline.
It does not matter whether Wikipedia has articles about other, less notable people. Here on Wikipedia we refer to that as the "What about X?" fallacy. Anyone can create a Wikipedia article, and anyone can start a deletion debate. You also say that "Choi's case has something worth noting"—however on Wikipedia, we don't make our own judgements about whether or not something is worth noting; instead, we see whether reliable secondary sources have found a topic worth noting by writing an article about it. In this case, they have not.
This is just a bunch of obfuscation and has nothing to do with deletion policies. cab (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 12:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep saying this is POV page is downright incorrect. his site is (as with any website) but the article is clearly written in a manner that is 'informing' and there is no 'siding' or 'advocating'.. the wiki article itself on dong hyun choi has encyclopedic and journalistic merit without pushing views. let it continue to inform and educate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.60.119 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC) — 81.158.60.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, I am unable to establish notability in reliable sources as required by WP:N and WP:BIO. The key item for inclusion/exclusion of a BLP is "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I recognize that North Koreas closed isolationist stance makes sources from inside North Korea hard to come by. The subject of this article has however not spent his whole life in North Korea, and if he was percieved to be notable in the UK and abroad he would be discussed in (as above) "published secondary source material". Finally, second hand accounts of phone calls are not sources, it's WP:OR. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. All the name dropping of people he has interacted with or who have written letters to help in does not establish notability, nor does the claim, not supported by reliable sources, that the South Korean government is out to get him. He got some fellowships and scholarships, which does not show notability, even when they are called "international awards". Winning prizes in international music competitions might be sufficient to show notability if documented from reliable sources. Edison (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reputable independent sources and unsolvable bias. Alexius08 (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jack Straw is an international politician and Jenny Tonge is national politics person in GB, also known for her work on Middle East conflict. If these people personally intervened on his case and British Parliamentary office verify it, that meets sufficiently qualification of WP:N. Most immigration and asylum cases are handled by executive officers. (Young graduates and managers in gov deparments.) It is rare for such high profile politicians to take on individual case. If gov offices is confirming he was adopted as British on the recommendations of these ministers and involveing Korean ministers, though unusual its significance on human rights law cases from Korean peninsula is miles passing notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbinica (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC) — Columbinica (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If those people personally intervened and that event was covered by reliable secondary source material it would probably establish notability. If it was not covered by secondary sources including it would be original research and wikipedia is not a publisher of original information. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cab. Can't find any reliable sources for this either. Yintaɳ 11:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.