Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick D. Kim (2nd nomination)

Nick D. Kim

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The lack of independent sourcing to establish notability is still an issue since the 2009 discussion. Sources are still not present to establish his notability.

Since that discussion, he has been mentioned in many books, but those are passing mentions crediting him for the pictures used in them. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Science, and New Zealand. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single source referenced in the article is not an independent source as it is written by the subject. The claim of notability in the article is ‘best fan artwork’ from a fan convention, which is not a notable award that would be considered as "won significant critical attention" or any other part of WP:ARTIST. My search for other possible significant coverage in independent reliable sources turned up nothing. I found instead a self-published book and wikipedia copies. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation count is solid but falls short of WP:NPROF#C1 for me, and I don't see any indication that he passes any of the other NPROF criteria. I unfortunately couldn't find any independent coverage that would indicate that he is notable as a cartoonist. MCE89 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the ascertained judgement of the notability of the subject as a cartoonist reached in the 2009 deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I am sure you know, notability standards have changed a lot since 2009. Do you have any sources to demonstrate his notability as a cartoonist? No usable sources at all were presented in the 2009 discussion. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while generally an h-index of 27 is not quite enough to pass the bar of NPROF by itself, combined with other activities it usually is based on discussions in the past. In this I would argue that the comic activity is substantial enough to confer notability. --hroest 17:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, but I don't see any independent commentary on his cartoonist activities. Barely anything is cited, either. This specific subcategory of the Sir Julius Vogel Award does not seem to be enough to confer notability. -- Recon rabbit 23:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ARTIST. The subject, a New Zealander, won the Sir Julius Vogel Award, which appears to be a prominent award in that country. The article could do with better sourcing, though.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, he won the Fan Award for best fan artwork. What is your evidence that this is a prominent award? The article for the Sir Julius Vogel Awards barely even establishes that the set of awards as a whole is notable, let alone that it is a well-known and significant award or honor. And even if the actual professional Sir Julius Vogel Awards are significant enough to establish notability, it seems like an enormous stretch to claim that winning the fan art award is enough on its own to make someone notable. MCE89 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example, according to the Sir Julius Vogel Award article, the "fan award winners" from "1997-2000" are "details unknown." It would be interesting to hear which of the four criteria of WP:ARTIST could possibly be met by winning a "fan award" that no one else can remember who won for four years at a time. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DesiMoore Even then, there's about nothing else establishing him. In a similar case to Taufik Rosman, the article would be better as a redirect to the award. Roast (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'm not opposed to a redirect, if that's the case. DesiMoore (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly I'm not familiar with WP:NPROF, but it looks like he could meet #C7a, as he appears to be the go-to expert for NZ media on a number of issues, most notably meth contamination: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Nil🥝^Talk 07:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And some more: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Just for some context - in NZ "methamphetamine contamination" of housing (especially rentals) was a huge concern a ~decade ago, and numerous "testing" services were set up (which were in all likelihood no more than snake oil salesmen). Dr Kim was in the media a lot during that time, basically saying the fears were overblown. Along with the media stories, there's a journal article here, featuring Dr Kim - [14]

And some other articles I found not related to meth but other environmental contamination stories in the media - [15] [16] [17] [18] Nil🥝^Talk 01:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is an unsourced BLP and not a single secondary source that provides any real coverage of Kim as a person has been provided. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE does not provide any reliable sourcing for the claims made in the article. Science and Ink appears to be self published, as does Succeed in Science and Avoid Getting a Real Job. I don't see anything online to show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though sources provided by Nil NZ just above are not yet in the article they seem to provide further notability. The subject also won a Sir Julius Vogel Award. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the sources found by NilNZ above convince me that notability is proven. Unfortunately for this person, googling "nick cartoon" tends to get you Nickelodeon, sort of a search engine optimisation nightmare. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because there is literally only one source in the article (a primary citation to his just his dissertation), and the rest is completely unsourced and/or simply original research, we are left to find coverage elsewhere. I would have voted to keep given that he was the recipient of the Sir Julius Vogel Award (which, given that it had a page, I thought might be grounds for notability), but MCE89's comment above has convinced me that the award is somewhat dubious (its unclear if it actually should have a page at all) and may not qualify as a a well-known and significant award or honor. GuardianH 18:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added all of my above urls to a refideas list on the talk page. Also it turns out that there are two Wikidata IDs for Kim d:Q7026976 & d:Q98773898. I've been expanding identifiers on the first one (used by the article), but I imagine they'll need merging over there...

I linked up his profile from SCOPUS [19], but will leave it up to someone more familiar with NPROF to assess against C1. As mentioned above, there's numerous reliable sources calling him an expert in environmental contamination, so I would still argue he meets C7, even if the article in its current state does not reflect that. Nil🥝^Talk 02:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]