Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahae


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahae

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No ascertain of notability beyond being rich and a photographer, which when coupled with the dubious nature of some of the citations makes me suspicious about the article, all the more so since it is a biography. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be better to just trim out the promotional stuff, and keep in the newsworthy parts? This guy is very deeply connected with the biggest ongoing news story in Korea. I think the number of articles about his role in the Sewol sinking speak more than adequately to his notability. Junganghansik (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I say keep because of the reasons explained by Junganghansik, and what makes me suspicious is the sudden interest in deleting everything about this man and his suicide cult, erased today too. MaeseLeon (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have a rich businessman turned photographer who has had his photos exhibited in some classy places, according to the sources paid by his sons to celebrate his 70-year birthday. I am not so sure subject would meet WP:ARTIST, but I could be wrong. What is very sure is that as a businessman with connections to the Sinking of the MV Sewol he has recently received abundant coverage in reliable sources, and I am fairly convinced he meets at least WP:BASIC. It would likely make more sense to move the article from his pseudonym to a transliteration of his birthname. Sam Sailor Sing 13:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's only the biggest story in Korea PeterDaley72 (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Ellif (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Keep - inevitable that the scale of the sinking incident will propel what are currently newspaper names into more reliable print sources as the dust settles. However expect this WP:BLP to be a magnet for IPs, socks, and a battleground between apologists for the church vs witch-hunters. Great. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The SPA editing, screendumps and history analysis included, has been mentioned by the media, e.g. Salvation sect mounts disinformation drive, as well as in Korean language news outlets, e.g. here, here, and here. I hope the crappy Google translation reading "Wikipedia is a tragedy regardless Yu Byeong-eon" is ... a crappy translation. Suggesting nom withdraw the nomination and close the discussion. Sam Sailor Sing 14:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, let me make one thing clear: I never withdraw a nomination I place unless I and I alone feel that it was done so in error. I don;t care if the entire community votes against me, I refuse to have anything withdrawn on grounds that I feel it to be unfair to all parties involved that a due process under a given policy or guideline was cut short for whatever reason the people deem to give in a circumstance. Accordingly, then, this is going to stay here until it either expires and is closed as it would be for any other afd, or until someone else shuts it down on SNOW grounds, which I am loathe to endorse but accept as a matter of due process — albeit with consequences. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is aleady renamed "Yu Byeong-on" and the Korean spelling "유병언" is the highest ranked story in Korean media. And Ahae is already just A link to the page. [검색결과 약 16,800,000개(about 16,800,000 result)] You can find the name straight in these weeks' articles from South Korea. --Carl Daniels (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Though I've tried my best to improve this article and would hate to see all that effort go to waste, I agree with TomStar81 that the subject probably lacks the notability to be included in the English language Wikipedia. If this were an article in Korean, I would vote to keep. But, as it is not, I vote for delete. TeamLFB (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC) — TeamLFB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Notability is unquestionable, and it was before. And we don't vote. Sam Sailor Sing 09:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sam's right, this is not, nor has it ever been, a vote. We are looking for consensus, which is obtained in a round table like discussion among editors — both veteran and new — as to how we should approach the issue. Consensus never involves a vote, it involves a speech and debate like approach whereupon the argument to achieve the most backing is agreed to be the consensus and is thus implemented with regards to the point being discussed (in this case, deletion). In this specific case, the consensus is that the article has notability under the existing guidelines and policies for a BLP related article, despite my argument that the articles lacks notability. In lew of this, it will likely remain here unless the closing admin picks up on something we've all missed and deletes the article on a point no one here has taken into consideration (like copyright infringement), and I'll note for the record that such a dramatic twist in these discussions is astronomically rare. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks to Sam for the link to before, though it took me a few seconds to figure out I was actually supposed to read "Before commenting in a deletion discussion." Having done so, I found the link to WP policies and guidelines and, perusing the list, I see that WP:NTEMP is far more appropriate in this case than what I wrote before. Now obviously, I don't know what the future holds; but I believe it possible that this person could revert to being a low-profile individual after these events have passed. Not that I believe this to be likely, but it is certainly within in the realm of possibility. As such, I feel that the subject's notability is not to the degree of being unquestionable and this AfD discussion is entirely appropriate, if Wikipedia is indeed a "lagging indicator of notability." Also, while the article itself doesn't fall afoul of WP:LIBEL, I've noticed that a lot of the references cited in the article would fall short of US standards. It appears that the ROK has different standards for defamatory speech than what I am used to. I guess my concern is that this issue with the news coverage could later cause the article to skew towards failing WP:NOTSCANDAL. I suppose this concern of mine could be putting the cart before the horse; but as the AfD process (for the most part) runs its course in a set amount of time, I felt I should raise the issue now while discussion is still open. TeamLFB (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sam Sailor, the artist meets WP:ARTIST.  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 09:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep While he may not be as well known outside of Korea, the man is public enemy #1 in Korea. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 00:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Any attempt to delete this article looks suspicious about motives behind it now. I agree with TeamLFB in that the AfD discussion itself is appropriate. However, we cannot predict the future, can we? Robobeg (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.