Talk:Reuben Kee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Reuben Kee's personal homepage

His website usually runs out of bandwidth by the end of the month, as people is downloading his songs or just checking what did he do during his lifetime. This is a normal behaviour and should not be added into the article as "website currently down". XGargoyle (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rest in Peace

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this but I'd just like to express my sympathy. You will be missed. -(BrutusCirrus 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Reuben's father

His actual name is 'Freddie Kee', despite being wrongly reported on the media as 'Frankie Kee'. Please do not change the name back to the wrong one. XGargoyle 09:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this person notable?

Reuben Kee died in an accident, and some Internet people that played with his Mugen characters want to tribute him. But is a Wikipedia article appropriate? I believe the answer is no. This is the kind of thing people should blog about.


  • Reuben made 3 prominent Mugen characters. Mugen characters are definitely not notable, nor are the people who make them.
  • Reuben liked making music. Should everyone who likes making music have a Wikipedia article?
    • Are people that "[earn] some notability" with OverClocked ReMix subject to Wikipedia articles? The person who created it, while named on its article, doesn't have an article.
    • Are people that composed the soundtrack of some film that doesn't have an article itself subject to Wikipedia articles?
  • Reuben won a regional beauty pageant. The pageant doesn't have an article, and I would be astounded if another winner has an article.
  • Reuben was a member of the Singapore National Dragon Boat team. Are participants of dragon boat racing notable?
  • Reuben died tragically at a young age in a dragon boat racing accident. While the event was newsworthy, being involved doesn't make someone encyclopedically notable.


This article is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia, so I have marked it for biographical notability. --24.207.198.84 19:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I also share your opinion. Of course it is sad that he died but there is no relevance to add his biography to wikipedia. So I think this article should be deleted if wikipedia still should be regarded as a serious encyclopedia. --87.161.149.231 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some reasons why the article should be kept:

  • Reuben won a regional beauty pageant. The pageant doesn't have an article, and I would be astounded if another winner has an article.

There is an article for the Mister World 2007 in which Reuben Kee was a contestant. His name appears together with all the other participants, some of them also have their own articles.

  • Reuben died tragically at a young age in a dragon boat racing accident. While the event was newsworthy, being involved doesn't make someone encyclopedically notable.

There are articles for several passengers of the United Airlines Flight 93, for example Todd Beamer or Tom Burnett. You have the same scenario, a national tragedy and several victims that are aknowledged in the wikipedia. Why Reuben shouldn't have his article? He wasn't just a random victim who happened to be there in the wrong time, his achievements both in real life and online made him notable. XGargoyle (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm going to add my own two bits and point out that the overall whole of Reu's achievements even excluding the online factor give him a great deal more notability and deserving of an article than a great deal of wikipedia. You have folks that contributed nothing but being friggin nude for Playboy and some cheap flicks or even just some backwater porn site that have an article of their own and no eyebrows raised. Voice actors that do nothing but a few voices given a complete article even though they're only remembered for that. So to you sir I say "nay": the person is important enough to enough people to warrant this article to remain. Also DavidGee, at least don't hide behind an IP would you?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


What, I don't remember the password for my existing account (D70306), and when I tried registering earlier today, "DavidGee" was taken by someone as "David Gee," so I didn't bother making some other account. Hide behind an IP address!
Please don't remove the notability tag, and leave it to an unbiased person who isn't suffering from Mugen religiosity and who has never heard of Reu. That an article like this exists makes me wonder if such a person might be available, though. The fact that spammers spam Wikipedia already doesn't mean that you should join in. What we're dealing with here is a question of biographical notability, and the bullet points I listed were only an attempt to give you some perspective on the suitability of Reu's biography for this site.
Tragic incidents are rarely a turning point in history, as is the case with 9/11, the famous terrorist attack. They are simply reported by journalists in newspapers. That the one which claimed Reuben's life is close to home because you've known him for years doesn't mean that it or the victims (of nature) are encyclopedically noteable. That Reuben is notable to you and to members of Internet forums for video game music and fighting game characters doesn't make him notable to the general public. You say that Reu has "contributed," which warrants his inclusion in Wikipedia. How many people in the world have done so, but have been steadfastly ignored by encyclopedias? I do believe there are many articles on Wikipedia that should be questioned and then removed, but this is one that I'm quite knowledgeable of. If I had time to patrol Wikipedia for notability, I just might, and anyone who does has my thanks.
This particular article... when I heard about it, I was profoundly surprised that you would go this far to show adulation for your "Mugen creators." My first thought was this: what would Reuben think if he knew about this? I don't think he'd be flattered. The two of you are glorifying an individual for making an impact in the Mugen community, something which is very important to you, but in general, is entirely unimportant.
I'm DavidGee, and I approve this message. --24.207.198.84 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "The two of you are glorifying an individual for making an impact in the Mugen community" <- I'm sorry to bust your bubble but no. If you'll check which sections had the most modifications recently you'll find the mugen bit is far from the primary one. You know what? I'm not even going into that with you: you're taking your own agenda from Guild and dragging it here when it isn't the case. Sorry dave, this has nothing to do with some "mugen creator adulation", and the fact you only clung to that shows you're unwilling to read what XG or myself wrote here or the article itself. Thus I find that the tag is unnecessary.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I got an edit conflict (uncanny). DavidGee here. Been browsing Wikipedia's policies. From WP:NOT#MEMORIAL: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." So it looks like this isn't the first time someone's done what I described.
I've also been browsing articles, and you are definitely right that there exist many articles that seem thoroughly unworthy of inclusion. This one, at least, was the result of effortful research. I'll remove the tag after a few days if there are no more respondents. By the way, I read everything very carefully. --24.207.198.84 (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, scratch that. The tag was already removed. WP:OWN ftw. --24.207.198.84 (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
From Be bold:

"Being Bold" does not excuse a disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines/policies that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia.

--24.207.198.84 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article is being written (note the lack of past tense? It's not finished yet. Just a few of us are still a bit busy before we can go and actively gather further relevant information) in a neutral and verified manner Dave, and note a not an obituary any more than articles for people like Vincent Price or Tony Jay are. I don't want to have a knockdown drag out with you, but I am presuming you're acting on perceived notions that are incorrect. This isn't because he was "omg a creator" or that he has passed away: it's because he was a remarkable person and one remembered a great deal by people all over as a teacher, musician, athlete and friend. You want to make it into something it isn't feel free to, and we can just keep going blindly with this here until it gets tiresome.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I could only be considered "incorrect" if Wikipedia's policies for inclusion of articles are not actually followed, and so there is no reason to try to keep the site clean of articles that don't belong. Like I just quoted from authority, being fondly remembered doesn't make someone notable, and I'm 100% certain that this extends to being fondly remembered as a teacher, musician, athlete, and friend all at the same time.
You think the article should be here. I don't, and I'm quite certain that Wikipedia's guidelines dictate against it. Whether the guidelines should be followed is another discussion. You are the one in control of the article, and there is no sense in either one of us repeating ourselves further. --24.207.198.84 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the private bill on the two of you, is it me or have you (DavidGee) not yet responded to the offer for an explanation given in "XGargoyle (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)"? 82.121.22.204 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's you, although I did not address the assertion that one-time contestants in the Mister World 2007 beauty pageant are notable because of this. I can't imagine why they would be. I did address the other assertion, that people who die in accidents are notable because of this.
Anyway, it's quite clear that this discussion is pointless. Kung Fu Man will guard this article every single day, and he will never listen to reason. This happens to be my first time disputing the notability of an article, by the way. Go ahead and delete this section, if someone would like to. --24.207.198.84 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, indeed you did not ignore it. It looked like that because you seem to be basing your argument on how the article is based on the person's contributions to Mugen, even though notes on these contributions take very little place in the article. The rest of the content towers over that last section, really. Although, I am not arguing on the validity of the rest of the article (all I can say on it is that the article definitely doesn't shock me like it seems to do to you); whereas you are considering the Mugen contributions to be the first reason the article was made, and suggest that this isn't enough. Reading the article as a whole, it doesn't look like Mugen is the first reason it was made; and again, I'm not shocked by the presence of the article so much that I would go head-on against its existence. 82.121.22.204 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Not shocking to a passer-by, of course. If you would like to delve deeper, the argument was actually started here: [1] (where I posted as DavidGee), after someone decided to make this article as a tribute. This is part of a long-standing, sweeping feud between myself and Kung Fu Man... If people want a Wikipedia article to exist, it will exist. Originally, I wasn't so aware of just how much non-notable content this site allows (who can stop it?). And the effort of filtering out articles for simply covering subjects which lack notability is much less helpful than the effort of improving on existing articles that need work. --24.207.198.84 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The name is spelled wrongly. It is not 纪恩瑞 but 纪恩锐. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.136.205 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So I hereby withdraw my argument on notability! Again, feel free to delete section. --24.207.198.84 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Probably not even worth mentioning, but I'm glad that this Wikipedia page exists: as a fan of Reuben Kee's work, I appreciate the fact that I now know of his fate, and learned some more about his hobbies and involvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.220.224.92 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)