Talk:Hyun Jin Kim

Notability tag

Hi User:Sungodtemple, I restored the reliable source you deleted and added yet a few sources to the article. With 4 reliable sources as it was (five before your deletion) the article already should've passed GNG as it met notability.

I am going to remove the notability template, if you disagree let me know. Giray Altay (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Giray Altay, most of the sources appear to not pass GNG:

1. N primary source
2. ? in depth, but from a possibly unreliable source
3. N only passing mentions
4. ? I do not have the full book, but based on a google books search appears to be just passing mentions
5. ? Neos Kosmos is probably reliable, but appears to be an interview
6. N only passing mentions
7. N only passing mention
8. N primary source
9. Y secondary, probably reliable, probably in-depth
10. N only passing mentions

This is why I originally placed the notability tag, the ref numbers are as of Special:Diff/1120994263. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Sungodtemple, Hi.

1. I still don't get why you removed one source and piece of the article in the first place, especially seeing that you consider the source "reliable", incidentally reducing the number of sources before placing a notability template
2. Which sources do not passa GNG? They all do in my opinion, and the fact a source's publisher, such as www.unrv.com, isn't worldwide famous does not make the source "unreliable" or does it?
3. There are two sources that include quotes from an interview. But what does it matter that the source is an interview if the object is the interviewer's assessment (what he/she says) and the source is reliable?
4. As for the google books sources, the subject is quoted passim and his theories discussed, sometimes at length; this is different from a passing mention

All in all we have one long article dedicated to Kim by the University of Melbourne, two articles dedicated to Kim by Australian newspaper Neos Kosmos, one article dedicated to Kim by UNRV, his work discussed in a UnHerd article, and the other parts of the article confirmed by several books, which should also further show that the subject is notable, as does also the number of links to this page within Wikipedia and the scholar's relevance in wiki articles dedicated to the Huns/Xiongnu.

Then again, how does the article not meet notability? Which sources you do not consider reliable? What you consider a passing mention? Let's check source by source together and then count the "okay" sources, because we are definitely above three.--Giray Altay (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

To address your points:

1. I removed the source as it was attached to a line that may be original research
2. I am worried that most of the sources talk about his theories rather than himself, and that this may not count toward his notability
3. See WP:INTERVIEW
4. See WP:Passing mention, just being in a bibliography does not count

The University of melbourne article does is purely parroting what Kim said and is a primary source, the UnHerd article mentions him once and talks about his theories. One of the Neos Kosmos articles has two paragraphs dedicated to introducing him, with the rest an interview, and the other talks about his theories.

I can't work my way through the wording of the sources. If there really are more sources talking about his theories, then there should be an article about the theory, rather than the person.

Although, given the subject is still alive and doing research, I think he will meet WP:NACADEMIC soon enough.

Sungodtemple (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Sungodtemple I disagree and I believe that the article meets GNG right now.

1. The line is His work focuses chiefly on comparative analyses of ancient Greece/Rome and China and there are multiple sources supporting the claim, how is that original research? How is one supposed to write a wiki article? I think this is a stretch. Regardless: why deleting also the source together with the line? Especially just before placing a notability template?
2. This is another stretch imo, a scholar is famous because of his theories, and those are what make him notable, but what is of interest here is just whether the subject is notable or not based on wiki's loose guidlines for notability and I believe he his. The sources discussing his theories are chiefly the google books, but let those alone and you will still meet notability.
3. I don't think those are interviews. They include quotes taken from an interview. Regardless, an interview is not unreliable per se, and again, only what is said by the journalist is being used as source.
4. That the University of Melbourne is "parroting what the author says" is your opinion, but what matters is that the source is reliable and that only what is spoken by the interviewer is used as source. Beside, that source is specifically used to prove is fellowship in the Australian Academy of the Humanities.

Kindly note that I added one source, a review of his work by Alexander Jamieson Beecroft from Springer's International Journal of Classical Tradition.--Giray Altay (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)