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 keep. JForget 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Comment: renamed to Moonie (Unification Church).

Wikipedia can not have an article on every word. This article has no secondary sources, beyond dictionaries, which discuss the word in depth. This is in marked contrast to our article on the "N-word". Borock (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why not just boldly Redirect to Unification Church? --NellieBly (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Unification Church. Although the word has not received "significant coverage" (as opposed to casual usage), it is a prominent synonym for UC members, so a redirect is appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: although I have concerns about the substantiveness of some of the material (particularly the early additions post-AfD), and whether it serves any good purpose to discuss this topic independently of Unification Church, there now appears to be sufficient material to withstand a challenge on the grounds of WP:Notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect. The group is certainly notable. Eeekster (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep Enough well-sourced material has been added so that WP:N has been satisfied. Although I think this is an interesting article (I am a "Moonie" myself and also worked on the article), I have to agree with the nominator that it doesn't rise to the level of WP:Notability based on the sources given. BTW the word "Moonies" is already mentioned in Unification Church. If much more than that was added to that article it would be giving undue weight since 90% or more of UC members do not live in English speaking nations and have nothing to do with the word "Moonies". Steve Dufour (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Steve, did you know that this is only the English-language Wikipedia? The term Moonie has very often been applied in English media and books over the last 4 decades. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point. The article Unification Church is about the world-wide church. So putting a lot of info on the English slang word "Moonies" there wouldn't be appropriate since most members don't even speak English. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), for recognizing that "Enough well-sourced material has been added so that WP:N has been satisfied." Cirt (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - term is widely employed by the mainstream media (see Google News, for example) and is well established in the public lexicon. A redirect is not appropriate because the term is sometimes used when not referring to the Unification Church as a sort of generic "cultish" term (there is an example in the article of this type of usage). The article needs to have better sourcing, but more than enough are available to satisfy notability guidelines. A comparison with something like Fenian can be made. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and occasional usage of a term as a metaphor does not mean that it has significant meaning beyond the original usage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, very noteworthy. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Literally thousands of possible sources in books and scholarly sources. Note: Among the books and scholarly sources, multiple sources have the very title of their works using "Moonies..." in the title. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Literally thousands of possible sources in books and scholarly sources" ≠ "significant coverage". These "possible sources" are generally no more than mere usage of the term 'Moonies' in talking about the Unification Church. This does not mean that there is any significant coverage of the term, as opposed to the church. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. There are many of them that do discuss it. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsubstantiated assertion! Which of them "do discuss it", let alone give "significant coverage" to discussing it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need to use exclamation points at me. I will work on the article. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added the ((WIP)) tag to the article, and I will work on in to expand the article with information from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is against policy here to every trace of information about a subject, merely because it lacks secondary sources. I daresay most of the information in this encyclopedia is common knowledge, or off the top of a writer's head, or from the topic's own website. Please do not reduce this article to a redirect as an excuse for deleting useful information. It is better to help other writers by looking up sources. --Uncle Ed (talk)

• Comment: Ed's claims are in fact contradicted by policy -- specifically WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.") & WP:NOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• However you fail to note that there are reliable, third-party sources on the topic. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is you who "fail[s] to note" (i) that my response was to Ed's claims about "information [that] lacks secondary sources" & (ii) that "trivial" mentions do not add to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. The article now demonstrates satisfying WP:NOTE. Still working on some additional research however. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Unification Church. Much of the content seems relevant and verified, but should be integrated with the main article. I don't think it's up to the standard of Mormon for example. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inappropriate to merge - please note that the term has a meaning of itself now separate from that article's topic: [1]. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reserving my judgement--whether this should be merged to UC or kept--until Cirt finishes the cleanup. I do, however, vehemently reject the idea that it should not at least be a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements. Good job, Cirt. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your positive comments about my work, Jclemens (talk · contribs), I really appreciate it. :) Cirt (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I am still working through book sources, have not yet progressed to research from news sources or journal sources. Will get to it soon. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that Cirt is going to fix the problems that seem to exist within the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much, Dennis The Tiger, for your kind words. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly not appropriate to delete, and there appears to be enough sourceable information to support an article on the term itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would note that the recently-introduced 'Commentary' section is no more than a string of bare mentions ("trivial" coverage as that term is defined in WP:NOTE) of "Moonie" in various sources (and in one occasion in a book title). I would suggest that this level of usage is true of hundreds of thousands (possibly even millions) of words or phrases, and that this mere usage does not bestow any particular notability. In no case does it appear that the cited usage/mention contains any more information about the term than is already covered by the lead paragraph (or a trivial variation thereof). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If editors take time to actually read the article in its entirety, they will see that this assertion by Hrafn (talk · contribs) is actually wholly incorrect. Despite the addition of independent reliable secondary sources that give a good deal of discussion of the subject, unfortunately it appears that Hrafn (talk · contribs) is unhappy with the article's subject for some reason and wishes to maintain a position of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I encourage editors to read the entire article and examine the sources used so far. I will continue to do further research on the topic. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If editors take time to actually read the article in its entirety, they will see…" that Cirt (talk · contribs) has strung together a a long string of brief/bare/trivial mentions. This is why every sentence has a different source -- because none of the sources contain "significant coverage". This is also why the material appears to be largely fragmentary & repetitive. I would suggest that Cirt (talk · contribs) takes his WP:Complete bollocks accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT & stick them where the sun don't shine -- as they are just symptoms of his WP:IREALLYDONTLIKEPEOPLEPOINTINGOUTTHATMYEMPERORHASNOCLOTHES. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, another wholly false and bad faith assertion by Hrafn (talk · contribs). If editors take the time to read the whole article, they will note the significant coverage in a variety of independent reliable secondary sources. However, I have not yet had time to expand upon discussion from those sources, as I am still doing research. There are multiple sources that give a good deal more discussion - I just have not expanded upon them yet - but some of them already have bits of that significant discussion touched upon in the article. Hrafn (talk · contribs) also appears to have failed to note that in addition to the Commentary subsection, the History subsection was also expanded upon, with material from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't turn this AfD into a battleground. I think it is clear that any doubts that may have existed about the appropriateness of this article have been eradicated by the good work Cirt has done, so I am not sure why Hrafn feels the need to continue objecting to its existence (particular in such a hostile manner). Let us please assume good faith and cease the bickering, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey (talk · contribs) - you make a very good point, I will do my part to attempt to cease the bickering. Thank you for your kind words about the "good work" I have done on this article. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — per improvements made by Cirt. --ざくら木 11:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Zakuragi (talk · contribs), for your kind words about my improvements to the article. Cirt (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Unification Church. While extensively sourced, this article essentially does nothing but state that the term is a sometimes-derogatory term for members of that church. It states that in many different ways and with reference to many different sources, but I just don't see the value here. There's nothing here that can't be covered by a good dictionary entry. At any rate, the article titled "Moonies", if there is to be one, ought to be about the people themselves, not the term by which they are known (per WP:NAD); until that article takes shape, the title should be a redirect. Powers ^T 13:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point about the name itself, moved accordingly to Moonie (term). Cirt (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's been moved again to Moonie (Unification Church) which has the same problem as in my original statement. This is why it's a bad idea to move articles during a deletion discussion. For the record: Moonie should be the disambiguation page currently at Moonie (disambiguation) instead of a redirect to Moonie (Unification Church). Moonies should redirect to the disambiguation page. Moonie (term), as a redirect, should be deleted. Moonie (Unification Church) should be deleted (or redirected if some content is salvageable and merged into the main church article, until such time as an article on the members of the church is created, as I mentioned in my original comment). Powers ^T 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article clearly goes beyond a mere dicdef to provide a detailed history of the usage and connotations of the term. Compare Gay for an etymological article in a similar vein. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. the article has been improved significantly since it was nominated. It has quadrupled in size, and now has dozens of secondary sources. The article is good and topical is noteworthy.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I significantly expanded the History subsection. I still have a bit more research to do and more sources to incorporate - specifically a few more scholarly sources and book sources that go into discussion of the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I did not really knw much about this group except through news clips. Why delete it when it can inform people. But need to make sure it is NPOV. History2007 (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But this article is not supposed to be about the group, it's about the word. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 06:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not about the group, rather about the term, its history, the group's response to this, and commentary from scholars about it. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says that WP articles should be about things not words. The other two articles mentioned as examples, Nigger and Gay, are about words whose use in history and present culture are so important that WP:Ignore all rules comes into play. In my opinion "Moonies" doesn't have the same kind of importance. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's got to be one of the most novel and pointless invocations of IAR I've ever seen. You've advocated or !voted for deletion of multiple UC items since I've been monitoring the topic, NWG. I would have expected that you could come up with a better argument. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your understanding of "not a dictionary." However there are actually many articles about individual words and their meanings here. I personally think that "Moonies" is interesting and important enough a word to be included in this group. (As I said before I might be prejudiced since I am a UC member myself. My initial vote to "delete" was based on lack of sources - now corrected - not lack of notability.) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Over half of WP's articles on the Unification Church have already been deleted or merged, mostly without AfD's. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Surprised this discussion is ongoing. It's clearly notable as a term and Cirt has done a good job fleshing it out. For those swinging WP:NOTE around, remember that the threshold for not deleting is whether sourcing exists to support a separate article, not whether the article has been fleshed out at the moment. ...it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. — e. ripley\^talk 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. notable word from my childhood. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any unnotable words?Borock (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Due to at least two page moves during the course of this AfD, it's no longer clear what article this AfD is referring to, nor which version various recommendations above target. For instance, my original recommendation "redirect" was based on the original title Moonies. That no longer applied when the page was moved to Moonie (term), and now that the page is at Moonie (Unification Church), my original reasoning is partly still relevant and partly moot. I suspect I'm not the only one whose logic was disrupted by moving the page in the middle of an AfD. Powers ^T 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I moved it to Moonies (term) due to your comment, and then to Moonie (Unification Church) to be more specific and tighter to the actual application and the topic it references. This is the most appropriate location so it can stay there. :) Cirt (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would move it back to its original place, pending the outcome of this discussion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no reason as to why. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, an article titled "Moonie (Unification Church)" should be about the people who belong to that organization, not the word that describes them. Powers ^T 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that term is controversial, so such an article would be titled something like "Members of the Unification Church" or "Followers of Sun Myung Moon". Cirt (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea for an article. Then Unification Church could be about the organization itself. There are probably enough sources for an article on church members. There was a study reported in the Washington Post as well as Dr. Barker's famous book. Borock (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be a good idea for an article, but it would be a different subject matter - about the individuals rather than the term. Cirt (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was what I was trying to say as well. I didn't mean it would replace this one. Borock (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my statement is not logically contradicted by that fact. Saying "An article titled 'X' should be about 'Y'" doesn't mean that the article about 'Y' would actually be titled 'X'. What I mean is that the article is titled as if it were about the Moonies; it should, if it must exist, instead be titled as if it were about the word. Powers ^T 14:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree, it is quite obvious that the article is about the term. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From just the title? I don't see how. Powers ^T 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, very noteworthy. The word is in every sense the equivalent of the LDS "Mormon," in that it is a better-known term than the formal title itself. People know who the "Moonies" are but not who the "Unificationists" are.Delacratic (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good reason to redirect to Unification Church. Borock (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "keep" and "merge"? If so, what would we call the new section? How about "What people have called the members"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of what subsection to call a subsection in an article would take place at the talk page of that article after the closing administrator had assessed consensus at this AfD. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a short section of "moonie" in Unification Church, but merging and dumping all the info in this article into that one would be very confusing to the readers - to say the least. That's one reason I voted to keep this article, besides that is interesting in itself as the story of a controversial word. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really all that much information here that would have to be merged. Much of it is redundant, or direct quotations, both of which can be easily reduced or eliminated. Powers ^T 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article speaks exactly on the topic of its title: history and usage of the particular term. It does not speak about the Moonies themselves; a separate subject; sufficient amount of diverse non-trivial info hence no merge. Precedents: Nigger/Black people/African American, feces/shit, etc. - Altenmann >t 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what it's title says. The title says "Moonie", which is a member of the church. Powers ^T 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The goal is to create an impressive and authoritative encyclopedia, and I'm really not seeing how this page detracts from that image. It's obviously well-referenced, and much effort has gone into keeping it neutral. It's true that it's the kind of page that can go non-neutral in a heartbeat if we don't keep an eye on it, so I understand some of the anxiety about it, but that's a problem for another day. Today, it's a shining example of what Wikipedia gets right and just about every other reference source gets wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think neutrality is a major concern. Rather, the question is whether this word, by itself, is notable enough to justify an entire encyclopedia article devoted solely to it and not to the concept it denotes. Powers ^T 18:52, 3 October 2009 (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.