The nominator has retracted this request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Padovese. As this is a currently hot article, could an admin close the rfd? -- Túrelio ( talk) 08:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Done. For what it's worth, this isn't a DRV issue - and any editor can close a speedy keep; doesn't have to be an admin.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Mikie Da Poet ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Page was deleted because it lacked facts supported by references. Now, the page has both at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Politowski55/Mikie_Da_Poet Politowski55 ( talk) 05:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - three of the links are just official pages. Anyone can have their content at iTunes - their bar for inclusion is very low. The FoxNews story is just about local rappers and gives no reason to believe that he is notable. -- B ( talk) 12:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - no evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 03:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Kim Ki Whang ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

<Hasty Deletion, Insufficient Discussion>

Folks, on the archive of the discussion for deletion, I see only two persons participating. One Astudent0 suggests that this is a "weak delete", to the effect that he can't find any independent citations. Other than that they think it's a good article.

A reason for not finding any independent citations may be this: at the time of Grandmaster Kim's teaching days, he went by the americanized name style of "Ki Whang Kim", rather than the traditional/modern "Kim Ki Whang".

A Google search for "Ki Whang Kim" produces at least ten pages of citations from a very wide variety of sources.

For example to choose almost at random: Richard Williams professional "iridology" homepage mentions his award of black belt in 1965 from Ki Whang Kim:

During this time, Dick was awarded his Black Belt in 
1965 by Ki Whang Kim, at that time the 
highest ranking Black Belt in the country.

From Tang Soo Do World website one Gene Garbowsky we see:

Although known as an outstanding sparring competitor 
Master Garbowsky has also won numerous forms 
grand championships including the late 
Grandmaster Ki Whang Kim’s famous Eagle Classic in 1995. 

from USA Dojo we see:

During the 1960’s and early 70’s, Anderson was 
extremely active in karate, sparring hours every day, 
teaching, and gaining a reputation as a good 
hard-nosed practitioner. As he was nearly 
forty when competition really became popular, 
and as he was in demand as a referee, he 
turned his attention that direction. Most of 
his involvement at that time was with the 
East Coast Korean group, and he had a close association 
with Ki Whang Kim, Richard Chun, Henry Cho, 
Kang Rhee, Kim Soo Jin, 
Jhoon Rhee, Mon Soo Park, 
and Chong Lee to name a few.

The list goes on and on. So many people are anxious to include Grandmaster Ki Whang Kim (Kim Ki Whang) in their pedigree of qualifications. It is clear that he was notable within the community of practitioners of Korean Martial Arts in the USA.

Reference to the original article, or to revisions of the original within the first few weeks of existence, will show lots of citations of verifiable external references including to Black Belt Magazine. For example, Black Belt Magazine includes many of Ki Whang Kim's students in their "Hall of Fame". Try to search for "whang" in Black Belt Magazine Hall of Fame webpage.

Really, this may be the most hasty and senseless deletion in the history of WikiPedia. -- Thardman22 ( talk) 03:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - goodness, this is the most hasty and senseless deletion in this history of Wikipedia? I think there are at least one or two others somewhere along the line. The sources you gave are trivial mentions. Is there a reliable source that is actually about him, not just mentioning him in passing? The article was almost completely unsourced and had the tone of a eulogy, rather than an encyclopedia article. (A lot of it actually reads like it was copied from an obituary ... "And that is how it should be, according to a kindly man with a subtle sense of humor who survived and prospered through a lifetime ..." doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article.) -- B ( talk) 03:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Could someone please link to the deleted version of the article? Thanks-- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I have restored the history. Please see [1] for the last version prior to deletion. -- B ( talk) 03:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Does anyone have access to HighBeam (I really should subscribe)? It seems he has a Washington Post obituary. And if there's anything substantial in that obituary, I'd be inclined to think we should undelete the article despite the AfD.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  • From looking at the number of places he is mentioned in other articles, I'm inclined to agree that he is notable, but look at the deleted text - it's a lot of uncited flowery language ... so while I think an article on the topic is appropriate, the one that deleted is not appropriate. -- B ( talk) 04:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I can't disagree with that. I'm thinking the best option might be to userfy the deleted version, cut the guff out of it and then use the Washington Post obituary. I'm tempted to volunteer for the task myself. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• A little confusion about the name is, in the circumstances, quite understandable. I'll endorse Cirt's decision as fully in accordance with the debate, and I'll also volunteer to help Mkativerata write a replacement article that overcomes the issues raised in the AfD.— S Marshall T/ C 11:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relist The discussion should not have been closed at that point; we normally now relist AfDs with so little participants. I think in this case the number of participants was affected by the overly promotional style of the article, which should not have been a factor--I know that I saw the way the article appeared to be written, and passed over that AfD without actually examining it (I can't work on literally all of them). But the excessive material on his philosophy and so on could easily be removed. DGG ( talk ) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Relist and Re-Write Here is an early version which has a variety of credible links in support of history, and credibility as a major player in introducing Korean Martial Arts (Tae Kwon Do/Tang Soo Do) to the USA Revision as of 05:06, 9 January 2009. Some of those links contain significant history to Kim Ki Whang especially in the 1960s/1970s, including many remarks from his peers and fellow sensei. Please recall that I was the original author but haven't had much to do with maintenance after my initial efforts. A variety of re-writing and additional contribution has occurred, with many revisions added by people withing to pad their pedigrees, so to speak. The probable true authority still living and available for contact is Jim Roberts who was a student and took over Kim Studios. Another detailed history is in PDF at "Sabang Kwon Hyung: Master Kim Ki Whang's Legacy by Grandmaster Kim Soo" which gives a lot of background detail on Kim's origins in Korea and his education and professional life there prior to coming to the USA. I must apologize for my "flowery tone" and did try to write an encyclopedic and accurate eulogy; I was one of his students. Many of us had chosen him over similarly-ranked instructors and studios in the same region of the country (for example, Jhoon Rhee because of notable differences in philosophy. As the difference in philosopy and instructive approach was fundamental to the teachings, perhaps some more-direct wording is essential, but I believe it also essential to include some of it to show differences between Kim's Tang Soo Do of the USA and traditional Korean Tae Kwon Do, for example. Also, perhaps with different wording, I would like to retain some mention of his faith and associations with the YMCA, these were very important to him, as were his competitions which he organized. Thardman22 ( talk) 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm being misquoted. I never said it was a good article--I did say there were some claims that might show notability if they had independent sources. I just reread the original article and it looks worse than I remember. I would say that the article should not be restored. However, I wouldn't object to a new article on him if it had independent sources that showed notability. I'd suggest the author of the new article take a look at WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 ( talk) 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Relisted. No objections to a relist. Please see [2]. Discussion can be continued at the AFD, until such time as another admin determines consensus after additional comments at the AFD discussion page. :) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Note: Discussion may now continue back at AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ki Whang. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply