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 do not delete, with no consensus between merge and keep positions in this AfD. lifebaka++ 05:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poor sourcing does not establish the notability of this book. Nor is there enough substantial information for an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to a bibliography entry in Sun Myung Moon. No substantive coverage, so nothing really worth merging, beyond the bare fact of its existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability was established last time, it's not transient, and AfD isn't used to force clean-up. There are 6 sources in a reasonably short article which is sufficient, nor am I seeing any of the sources really being poor. The Washington times and two large daily korean news organizations to start. 2 articles entirely devoted to the subject are usually all we require to meet the threshold for significant coverage by a reliable third party source, combined with the books presence on top seller lists. all this information is extremely obvious. The only thing that has changed is that there are now nearly 200 news articles from major korean news agencies mentioning the book [1].--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also point out this source [2] which indicates that the book has sold over 1 million copies and has become a topic of daily conversation. Can't get any more notable than when a reliable sources spells it out.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Notability is well established, but an article is just unnecessary - frankieMR (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is established, then an article can exist. The basis for this proposal was notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the proposal could've been to merge from the beginning, but it ended up here - frankieMR (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a concurrent merge proposal as well. It seems a lot like a "We want it gone, let's throw a bunch of stuff at it and see what sticks". Both proposals cite notability as their reasoning and with notability established there is little reason for either proposal to go ahead. A lack of content in the current article is not a reason for merge. Merge is usually done for non-notable topics that have been split off from or created in addition to a main subject.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about content that gets forked, but reversely notability doesn't force it to become separated. In this case, claim of the subject's significance is limited to pretty much its sales and rankings, which are indeed remarkable, and that may be easily covered at Sun Myung Moon - frankieMR (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but one could say if the book didn't sell well, no one would talk or write about it. One reliable source noted that the book was so popular that it was a topic of daily conversation. While the same article also noted that it had sold over a million copies, the assertion goes beyond simply relying on sales. Setting a record is also different from simply saying the book sold X copies. As to the content, we're back to WP:DEADLINE and the status quou. Since the assertion made here to change that was that it isn't notable, and if that is false, then there is no reason to change it. I'm all for deleting non-notable stuff, see my history. I've nominated and recommended deletion on many things that would be considered inside my area of interest, and even things I've liked, but weren't appropriate for wikipedia. However, this is a subject which is controversial, and it would seem some people are trying to pull a snow-job on an article which simply hasn't had enough attention vs one that actually shouldn't be here. Those are two entirely different things. Wikipedia is perfectly okay with having stubs all over the place, so one more on a clearly notable subject is perfectly fine as well. Someday, someone will flesh out the article, perhaps if I can improve my Korean further, I can pull up some more in depth sources on the subject as well, and make something of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you mostly, and my decision is a bit borderline on this matter. Given the existence of the merge proposal this AfD is a bit disruptive, perhaps the best would be to close this until the merge is resolved, and after that article may be renominated if notability remains in question - frankieMR (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I would agree that this AfD is probably unnecessary given the existing merge proposal, I don't think it is harmful, so should be allowed to proceed. For one thing it opens up discussion of the future of this article to a wider audience, and thus allows a wider consensus on it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with that is for the merge proposal to result in a merger and the AfD as a keep, or viceversa, but I guess the closing admin(s) will be taking this circumstance into account - frankieMR (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that in the first AfD notability was merely asserted, not established. The only source presented was naver.com, which is at best a mediocre source (being simply a portal/aggregator), does not provide much depth of coverage nor appears to act as a WP:SECONDARY source offering interpretation or analysis. Additionally, a lot of the coverage referred to appears to be on Moon generally, not the autobiography specifically. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that that is an out and out lie. Naver was not the only source provided in the first AfD. I did link to naver to show the fact that there were many news stories covering the book. This particularly story actually comes from Newsis, not naver, it's just on a naver link [3], None of these stories are from naver, and were all presented at the first AfD [4], [5], [6]. You're now going through and trying to tag the article to death, and taken your blatant misrepresentation here, it's beginning to look a little pointy.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Please demonstrate that newsis.com is a WP:RS (I can find no information on it). (ii) Please explain why "none of these stories" (only one of which was cited in the original AfD) are from an independent source, but are in fact from a UC subsidiary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrate it's not. You're unlikely to find much English information on a Korean news agency. [7]. They're a news organization like any other and they've been around for 10 years. [8] they seem to have relationships with several major news providers like associated press reuters, etc. you're now just grasping at straws.--Crossmr (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's just a puff-piece on the English launch, it's really not worth my while bothering. Not so much "grasping at straws" as trying to put the last nails in the coffin. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion and nothing more. Whether the piece is a "puff" piece, or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the news organizations dedicated an article to the subject. Trivial coverage, is usually meant to indicate coverage in which a subject is only name dropped and little else. For example a larger article on religious movements that simply said something like "...like the unification church started by moon in Korea" would be trivial coverage. An entire article dedicated to the subject, regardless of content, is not trivial. Absolutely nowhere in the guideline that you're clinging to does it say that the sources must provide in depth analytic coverage to be considered non-trivial. These aren't simply price listings indicating the book is on sale.--Crossmr (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability explicitly requires sources that "address the subject directly in detail" -- a piece only on the launch of the English version fails this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the full statement, address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. It only requires that the detail be enough that the information can be garnered without using original research. It also goes on to say Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. It's quite clear that 'trivial' is referring exactly to what I described, and these sources are more than trivial.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of the current fully independent sources: [9] a detailed piece by the joong-ang daily on some of the history around the book, [10], a very long and detailed article on the book, [11], [12], two articles specifically about the book and details on it, [13] another lengthy article talking about the book, and the newsis article here [14]. All of these are non-trivial articles written about the book.--Crossmr (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The book clearly has enough notability to be mentioned but the reader is best served by merging this to the article on Sun Myung Moon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I probably should have taken more time to express the nomination. The real problem is lack of content, not so much notability. If you take out the story in the Unification Church owned Washington Times and the commentary on that by conspiracy theorist blogger Robert Parry the article could be boiled down to two sentences: That the book is Moon's autobiography (obviously the story of his life as told by himself -- the article takes a section to say just that) and that it has sold over a million copies in South Korea. That information could (and should already) be in Moon's own article since that would be an important event in anyone's life. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should withdraw your nomination. Lack of content is not a valid reason for AfD, see WP:DEADLINE.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of significant discussion in reliable secondary sources independent of its subject. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the 6 fully independent sources I just listed above, 3 of which are very extensive articles on the subject.[15], [16], [17] [18] [19] [20] all wholly independent all non-trivial.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moon is a well-known person whose actions are reported on by newsmedia worldwide. The article needs more material from reviews of the book, but notability of the book seems to be established from the sources Cossmr has provided. Note that about half the article is sourced to a blog article written by someone who does not seem to have read the book itself but is using the Washington Times article to rant about how the "Moonies" and the "neocons" are working together, probably to take over the world or something like that. Borock (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article written primarily based on self-published sources. I also would call into question the exceptional claims made by certain Korean news sources, can we demonstrate that they are, in fact, not associated with Moon? BelloWello (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The burden would be on you to demonstrate they are. There is no evidence the UC owns any of the news organizations I provided. and sorry, but your claim doesn't hold water. Of the 8 sources in the article, only 2 are primary sources. So it is not written primarily on self-published sources. Though I'd seriously question the motives of anyone who deemed the contents of a book unimportant for it's inclusion on an article about that book.--Crossmr (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Crossmr has shown that there are enough reliable sources to prove notability, as required by the general notability guidelines. Foreign language sources may exist. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2011 (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.