Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chae Hyun Moon


 * 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   redirect to Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California). Content is available under the redirect should anyone find it worth merging. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Chae Hyun Moon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Negative sourced BLP. Normally, I delete attack pages on sight, But it is sourced by NYTiimes. The key to WP:CSD being "that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." I'd like more eyes so I don't delete an article that turns out to be keepable through terms of significant coverage, though I've little doubt it will be SNOWED. There are 8 sources, including NYTimes. Thanks  Dloh  cierekim  14:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:EFFECT, and WP:NOT. Info already in two places in Tenet Healthcare and related hospital article, so no loss to encyclopedia. NB that article created by WP:SPA whose edits are almost entirely about this case and creating articles about this case, so there are likely WP:COI issues. If the Coronary book is notable, create an article about that book, though it's far from clear that it is, given that the 2007 book has 0 GNews hits and has already been remaindered. THF (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: this better search provides a handful of book reviews and listings of book readings; NB the false positives pre-2006, though. THF (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Coronary is a common word. Therefore, I did a search of Coronary: A True Story, Coronary True Story, Coronary A True Story and it came up with 75,300 hits on google.com.  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Coronary+True+Story&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.139.94 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)  — 99.71.139.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If the problem is that Coronary is a common word, then that exaggerates the number of hits, not eliminates reduces it. Can you describe for us your interest in the subject? THF (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC), updated 17:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per THF, but I agree the book is notable and would justify creating an article on it. -RobertMel (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge any salient, sourced information to Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California) and leave this as a redirect. Looking back through the page history I don't agree that the article was overly negative, thats the nature of the BLP1E game when the one event is a bad one. However, one event is one event, so redirect this guy and his cohort to the medical centre's article, where the subject can be covered in more depth if necessary. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Partly based on WP:BLP1E - though the alleged wrongdoings were repeated over a number of years, it's effectively just a single notable issue. And partly because it is already covered by Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California), and that is the obvious place for it rather than individual articles about the two doctors involved. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  07:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with a redirect. I would normally say keep on this, because it is impeccably sourced, the accusations are a matter of public record, and reliably reported. That the NYT wrote about it indicates that this is a significant crime, and of general interest. But he is merely one of the participants, and there is a good place to merge to that will keep the material together. I see no reason to delete the history.   DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 10 March 2010 (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.