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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hak Ja Han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

She is the wife of Sun Myung Moon, the leader of the Unification Church. However she herself has not be the subject of coverage by secondary sources as required by WP:N. This article has been used as a WP:Coatrack by both members and critics of her church to talk about other topics. It has very little reliable information about Mrs. Han herself. Redddogg (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, duly sourced throughout, though indeed it looks like the sources and the article in general could use some inspection and cleanup - the subject satisfies WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge Weak keep (to True Family, per existing merge proposal). I made a major attempt at finding third-party sources for this article about a month ago, but found very thin pickings (most mentions were incidental to discussion of her husband). Since then there's been an on-going attempt to load the article up with UC-affiliated and questionable-reliability sources in an attempt to 'bulk it up' to give the appearance of sufficient coverage to be notable. Further, I have yet to see much evidence of prominent actions that were independent of her husband and/or received significant notice outside her church. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The "UC-affiliated and questionable-reliability sources" have since been removed & more third party sources added. I do have concerns about the lack of weightiness of much of the material (much of which pertains to the topic's attempts at seeking publicity), but think that there's enough here to warrant keeping. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is well-sourced, even if most are about her public role and not so much about her private life. She seems to be an important person and should have a WP bio. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Did a bit of clean-up work on the article already - now in process of adding to it with additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contra the nom, I count six references in the article as it exists now which speak specifically of her (albeit generally as "Mrs. Moon" or "Moon's wife" rather than by name) in their titles. That seems to me to clearly meet WP:N, and V is clearly met by independent sources. Merging an article with sufficient sources like this should be an editorial consensus--not an AfD mandate. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Han Hak-ja. The title as it is is an older style of Korean names in English. The article name as it is is amost never used. (I am a Unification Church member BTW) The other would at least be her correct name in Korean. She is more often refered to as "Mrs. Moon" in English. Incidentally the information that in Korean culture a wife does not take her husband's family name but keeps her birth name is not mentioned in the article. I mentioned it in article which mentioned her and it was moved to a footnote, and then (I think) removed. I will assume good faith and not think that editors were trying to make Rev. and Mrs. Moon sound "weird" because they have different family names. Instead I will assume that most WP editors are clueless about good non-fiction writing and don't know that a good non-fiction writer will try to put him or herself it the place of his or her readers and try to guess what questions they will ask and what things they would want to know. Thanks for putting up with a long AfD vote. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename - The majority of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources refer to the individual under the current article's name. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all readers reading "Hak Ja Han is the wife of Sun Myung Moon" will ask "Then why don't they have the same family name?" What do you think of the article including a note that explains this point? Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, like I said, the vast majority of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources refer to her as "Hak Ja Han". Cirt (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an issue in other Korean bios. I added a small note to the article and a link to Korean names for people interested in this topic. p.s. Deletion would be silly for an article on this person who has attracted world-wide attention.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Recent changes to the article have had the effect of taking some coats off and putting some more on. Clearly there is not enough material to write an article about the topic. Redddogg (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, these were events organized by the subject of the article, directly prior to world tours by the indvidual promoting these organizations. Highly relevant. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then write articles on these organizations, world tours, and events if they are so important. Redddogg (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, they could be independently notable, but that does not preclude these events and organizations from also being noteworthy and relevant to the subject of this article, as well. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions for "keep" voters: The article now has 35 sources. Could you refer me to one that would give me any substantial information about Mrs. Han? If not how is this WP article not WP:Original research? Thank you. Redddogg (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are all secondary sources, not primary. There is no original research in the article. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If each secondary source provides one sentence and you put all those sentences together to make an article, that would be WP:Original research.Redddogg (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. I have done a great deal of work and research to improve the article with secondary sources; WP:RS/WP:V sources which directly discuss the subject of the article herself. It was not an easy feat. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying. Your hard work, which really was outstanding, did improve the article but did not make the subject of it notable since she has not been covered in depth by reliable secondary sources as WP:Note requires. Redddogg (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging the hard work that I have put into this article. It is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, thank you again. Here is a quote from WP:Note: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Redddogg (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has some issues, including coatrackism as nominator mentioned. However the subject is clearly notable from the amount of news coverage as well as coverage in books. Borock (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per almost everyone above. Should never have been nominated. "Hak Ja Han" in quotation marks and "Moon" returns 31 books in Google scholar, mostly books by new religious movements scholars, over 6000 hits in Google, hundreds or thousands of news articles in English covering a 40+ year period, and who, together with Sun Myung Moon is considered "God's body," "The Second Coming of Christ," "Messiah" (try Googling "Hak Ja Han" "co-messiah"), "The True Parents of Mankind," etc by a worldwide religion - there's absolutely no question she's notable. Strongly oppose merge for the same reasons. Oppose re-name - This is English Wikipedia. Btw, Cirt and others have made tremendous improvements to the article. They should be highly commended. -Exucmember (talk) 05:36, 26 March 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.