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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D. Kim[edit]

Nick D. Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A nonnotable chemist/cartoonist. No independent sources to verify notability and info. - Altenmann >t 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one gets a loud ""HUHHH" from my direction. Article subject is a chemist and an academic who apparently draws cartoons as a hooby. Given his extensive listed history of chemistry-related publications, I think it's safe to say his cartooning has little to nil to do with his notability. Unless the nominator can explain the nomination better I'd say just close this ASAP Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)![reply]

• Sorry; updated the statement of the nom. Still, your vote is ungrounded. Every scientist produces publications in various journals. The question is how notable they are. - Altenmann >t 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I think his notability is for his comics rather than his academic work and perhaps the article could emphasise this more. Certainly I have seen calenders of his comics sold in the past. - SimonLyall (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is difficult to disentangle the various N D Kims, but I get GS cites of 100, 80, 26. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep for this cartooning, which needs better coverage in the article. His Tess of the Dirigibles is a classic Stuartyeates (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Probably fails WP:ACADEMIC but is known for cartooning. Cartoons are published irregularly in the Waikato Times and apparently in some journals. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for voters-keepers - how about the the most basic rule of wikipedia: verifiablity? "I saw it somewhere" is not an argument. Where is the scholarly/critical discussion that he is a notable cartoonist? - Altenmann >t 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've added back the section on his cartooning that was removed about a year ago (usual two vandals and the second got reverted). He's on cartoonstock here. He's moved his domain a few times so searching is harder. How about this page on a book of his cartoons:

His pictorial gems have been featured in various magazines and journals including New Zealand Science Monthly, New Scientist and Physics today. He also produces a weekly cartoon for the Waikato Times. In 1996 and 2001 he received the "Sir Julius Vogel Award" for Best New Zealand Science fiction Art.

-SimonLyall (talk) 00:22, 8 July 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.