Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists

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.

a/c) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

List of Unificationists

)

I know that WP has other lists of members of religions. However this article has a lot of problems. It starts out by listing Rev. Moon's family, who are already the subject of another article:

WP:BLP policies. Most of the article is uncited and some semi-notable people seem to have added themselves, or been added by friends, for the sake of self-promotion. Notable church members could be researched by means of categories (as already are in use) without the need for a list. (Disclaimer: I am a Unificationist, but not an important enough one to be on the List of Unificationists.) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Since a "list" of religious adherents is never complete, shouldn't this be a category, if it continues to exist in some form? Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are already several categories for Unificationists. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a list of the Moon family members and high ranking individuals within the Unification Church's business operations. I don't see the encyclopedic value of this list.
talk) 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list can easily be improved upon by adding a citation to a secondary
WP:V source for every entry on the list. See List of Scientologists for a list that is maintained better, with a citation to a secondary source for every entry. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have begun to do a bit of cleanup on the list. I will work to add a secondary
WP:V source for each entry. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep:~~ Neutral while the major members on this list could as easily be dealt with by a category (and would typically have citation in their own articles for their being active in Unificationism), this list serves as a place for mention of more marginal members, for whom mention of in primary sources (including their own writing) and/or trivial mention in secondary sources clearly indicates are active in (and often are prominent within the context of) Unificationism, but lack the significant third party coverage (and thus prominence in the wider world) to sustain their own articles.
Won Pil Kim would appear to be candidates for this treatment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I have just found WP:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, which states that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." (emphasis in original) This would appear to preclude the advantage of the list that I discussed above, so I'm changing my !vote to "Neutral". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If kept rename because "unificationist" does not necessarily mean a church member, since there are unification movements around the world that have nothing to do with religion. I suggest
List of members of the Unification Church 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

BTW there are people who believe in the teachings of Rev. Moon who are not Unification Church members. There are also people who no longer believe in him and have left the church but still believe in the ideal of Unificationism. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what is the deletion standard (in terms of notability and/or encyclopaedic content) for stand-alone lists? I see many 'List of episodes of XXX' or 'List of characters of XXX' articles for many topics, almost ubiquitously without sourcing, and many of which have main articles (on 'XXX') that are of very marginal notability and very minimal sourcing. Is there a consistent standard, or is it merely case-by-case
WP:ILIKEIT on the list in question? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per Cirt - religious affiliation, if a notable part of a person's public identity will be subjected to scrutiny under BLP. This is a question of article maintenance, not of existence of the list, which is clearly a good list to have as a supplement to articles related to this religious movement.--Cerejota (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just also removed or changed some of the problems with original research and uncited potentially negative material on the list. I would not object to it so much if there really was a commitment to keep it up to WP standards. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of members of a church, etc. are normal on WP. Could be retitled since most people do not know what a Unificationist is. Borock (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cirt but consider retitling as per Borock. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consider being strict about requiring RS references for each person on the list as per List of Scientologists. (Although, I don't think the Hollywood gossip mill and joke additions are such a problem with Unificationists.) AndroidCat (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. The UC is not so big in the show-biz community as Scientology. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Keep per Hrafn. 2. Retitle per Borock. In addition to Borock's argument, many more people know "Unification Church" than know "Unificationists." The alternative label "Unificationists" can be mentioned in bold in the first sentence of the article. 3. Address problems in the list per Steve Dufour and Cirt. I did not think any of those on the list were added by self/friends; Steve, why don't you name the ones you think are in that category. Even in the last 24 hours, editors have made a lot of changes to this article, and the vast majority are very good. The article seems to be greatly improved. -Exucmember (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I responded to the self/friends issue on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How large should a sect be before it ranks such a list? Bearian (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is not a matter of size but of notability. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case about half the article is taken up by the Moons' family, which has its own article. The other half is mostly church officials, who are mainly spokespersons for Rev. Moon, plus just a couple of people who who have become notable in the larger world. I'm not sure for whom the list would be useful. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is simply because individuals haven't taken the time to clean up the list and source each entry yet, and/or write Wikipedia articles about other notable members and former members. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has a secondary source ever discussed the topic "Members of the Unification Church"? Steve Dufour (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources have discussed the individuals on the list as being members of the Unification Church. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 5 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.