Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Peace Festival


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Global Peace Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not covered in depth by reliable secondary sources as required by WP:Notable. As a result the information in the article is incomplete and inaccurate. Borock (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. Throw enough cash at an idea and you're bound to get a few celebrities and a (very) few column inches, but as Borock states, no coverage in any depth. No reason to consider this to be anything but yet another Unification Church vanity exercise. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should we care whether the events are a vanity exercise? That's irrelevant to the process of writing an encyclopaedia.  The only thing that we should care about is whether the events are properly and thoroughly documented outwith the encyclopaedia.  Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Why"? Depth. Of. Coverage. Vanity exercises typically get very superficial coverage. Celebrity/politician gives a speech full of platitudes, newspapers give them brief coverage because they're famous, and everybody forgets them the next day. Having dealt with UC articles for a while, I've seen this over and over -- UC creates an organisation, generally with "International" "Peace" and/or "Family" in its name, it garners a few superficial news reports while the money-hose is turned on, but evaporates as soon as the money-hose is directed elsewhere. We've a whole graveyard of them at List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a passing mention of this, that doesn't really say much about the subject at hand, in a biography of Jose de Venecia, Jr., but, otherwise, little that I can turn up in books. If these events have made it from the newspapers into the history books, I haven't yet found any evidence of that.  I notice that the article, whose current state is very different to its state in earlier years after some talk page concerns were addressed from 2008 onwards, is largely now supported by multiple news articles that appear at first glance to be independent of the subject.  Why is the government of the Philippines described as an unreliable source for the simple fact of the authorship of a song, by the way? Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's a press release, and press releases are generally considered a less-than-reliable source -- being more about spin than substance. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really answer the question, though. Let me emphasize an important part:  Why is the government of the Philippines described as an unreliable source for the simple fact of the authorship of a song?  What reason is there to think that the government of the Philippines is not factually reporting a song's authorship credit?  Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the source is not simply claiming "the simple fact of the authorship of a song" -- it is also claiming that it is "the GPF theme song", which may well be an exaggeration of its status -- particularly given the PR piece's exaggerated claim that it "has become popular worldwide." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources show that the events are notable, and considered important in some places -- although not by the American press it seems. Part of the problem that Borock was alluding to in the nomination is that at one time the GPF was sponsored by the Unification Church (of which I am a member) but is now run by a break-away group that no longer uses the name "Unification Church" or consider themselves a part of it. Probably a good article has to await better coverage in the news media, or in books. However deleting the article as it is, which seems to be fairly neutral and sourced as well as can be expected, would be a step backwards. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve: do you have any WP:RS evidence for this "break-away"? And if the UC isn't footing the bill for these conferences/festivals, then who is? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article in Forbes discusses it, although it doesn't mention the GPF: http://www.forbes.com/global/2010/0412/enterprise-moon-sun-myung-spiritual-unification-world-revival.html -Steve Dufour (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, what the article says is that "Yet the stirrings in Korea find this dynamic duo at odds with an older brother in the U.S., Hyun-Jin, whose Unification Church International (UCI) operation there has grown removed from them and, it would seem, from their father. UCI apparently is not donating funds into the American branch of the church, led by sister In-Jin, 44." Given Hyun Jin Moon is chairman of the Global Peace Festival Foundation, it seems that it is not the GPF that is breaking away from the UC, but rather that the international branch of the UC (including the GPF) is drifting away from the American branch, the Korean branch and the Korean commercial interests. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was giving you "inside information," not yet covered by the media. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you were giving me "Original Research" -- hence my earlier request for "WP:RS evidence". (As an aside, my general impression is that most of the UC's money comes from its Asian congregations, not its American ones or its business interests -- making the effects of any split interesting to say the least.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The church community is going through great changes, but you are right that WP has to wait till that is reported in "reliable sources." Steve Dufour (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to attest to notability. In particular this article treats the subject in some depth. Neither incompleteness nor inaccuracy is a justification for deletion. Thparkth (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep International media coverage seems to establish notability. Anyway WP's job is to give information that has been published, even if that is incomplete. Inaccurate information could be left out if that is a problem. Wolfview (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2011 (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.