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 No consensus to delete I cannot in good faith say that there is a consensus for deletion here. That being said there are serious problems with the article that have been brought up in this AfD. Some common ground was found by those seeking a merge with another article that was recently deleted and thus such a closure was not an option for me or I would have strongly considered it. I recommend that the issues brought up here be addressed or that another AfD be done in the future. Chillum 19:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bong-han[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please note the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system. jps (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a laudatory biography teased out of passing mentions in publications that are about something else. This person is known only for the "discovery" of a purported new vascular system, the primo-vascular system, of which science has taken virtually no notice (at least outside of Korea). There is only one subject - the primo-vascular system and its purported "bong han ducts" - and that subject is itself of questionable notability. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG notability does not require being the main topic of source material. There seems to be no particular reason to dismiss Korean WP:WORLDVIEW. The status of primo-vascular system is unsettled, with some editors feeling it should be merged to Kim Bong-han. I agree that the article ought to be less promotional, but its possible to WP:FIXIT. Rhoark (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it pretty much does require that the subject of the article has been the primary focuis of reliable independent coverage at least somewhere. There si only one topic here: the purported primo-vascular system (which is itself unverified outside of a small community and has no presence in the relevant current literature - and we all know the problems with North Korean claims to scientific advance). Guy (Help!) 12:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system article is kept, in which case merge over there. I argue for deletion of the other article too, but I'm pretty sure the only claim-to-notability for this scientist is that other topic. Two articles on this should not exist on Wikipedia, certainly. I don't even think one should. jps (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be anything to this other than his associated "discovery" of something that hasn't been found to be a real thing in over forty years. It ought to have been independently corroborated a gazillion times by now, but all we have is wiki eds claiming that acupuncture is vindicated by this guy's 'discovery' (nb: note justified 'scare quotes'). Nope, doesn't work that way. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with Primo-vascular system, if it is kept or no consensus is reached out there. If we are going to delete this, we would as well need to massacre quite a few half-finished pseudoscience (biography) articles involved with homeopathy or associated nonsense. As long as enough people believe in primo-vascular systems it is good enough to stay in Wikipedia. We are more a humanist project than a positivist one, and all (notable) information should be equal. It is probably better to delete the primo-vascular system article and keep this person here, if we are having a single article, just in case this person has done something else during his career. Also, regarding discoveries on human body: There have been a few new tiny parts (re)discovered on humans in the past few years. Like Dua's layer or the rediscovered Vertical occipital fasciculus. Took more than 85 years to find that one again. Those articles are in quite a bad shape too, so some WP:FIXIT is indeed needed. Ceosad (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just as WP:GNG doesn't require being the subject of an article it doesn't allow purely passive mention. By that reasoning being in the phonebook passes WP:NOTE -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Maybe I'm a tad to harsh here, but this article would still need improving to be kept. Currently it doesn't have enough independent sources. Also some of the sources arguably fail WP:RS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the related discussion as delete, so I won't vote here at all. I will ping DGG to look, although he isn't obligated to respond. He has a real nose for policy with these medical/professor/professional types of cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to suggest merge with Primo-vascular system but that article was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system. Now what? QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I actually agree with QG here and think the deletion unfortunate. The article needed drastic rewriting to indicate the status, but it was sufficiently important fringe. My inclination is to find some way to cover fringe, even such fringe as this, when at all justifiable (and of course to cover it in NPOV fashion) , rather than conceal it. I think it would be possible to improve this article instead, if someone will do it. I know my willingness to accept this is likely to be a minority view, but I'm always a little concerned about our having too great a tendency to suppress nonsense rather than show it for what it is. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
- - (closer, do not consider my comments for consensus) My thinking is that it would better be covered here than in the other article. My close to delete the other seemed inevitable given the consensus and evidence there. Nothing in that close prevents a redirect being recreated and pointing here. Using WP:V, this seems more likely to be kept as we don't get into so many WP:MEDRS issues in a biography, and we don't give so much undue weight to the topic, while still covering it briefly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Both pages were short so it was easy to delete them independently. If they were both merged together it would of been a different story. I think this page is not notable. The other page could of been kept if this page was merged with the other page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE subjects need mainstream sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. We don't have these here; instead we have a Hindawi (read: inadequately peer-reviewed) journal, an acupuncture journal, and a credulous puff piece in a business magazine. In addition, the article seems to be a WP:COATRACK pseudo-biography with half its text and all of its supposed notability based on this one discovery. And the "Legacy" quote is purely promotional retrofitting, almost as embarrassing as the attempts to vindicate Velikovsky by the discovery of Sedna. If the parts of the article on his dscoveries were to be completely rewritten based on mainstream sources as DGG suggests, it might be salveagable — I don't think the parts of the article regarding Kim's life are in dispute — but I don't know where these mainstream sources are to be found if they even exist. I did some searches looking for them and came up empty. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2015 (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.