Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihyun Park


 * 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The result was: withdrawn  Chumpih  t 08:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Jihyun Park

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence that she is a current councillor, and therefore likely to fail WP:SUSTAINED. Chumpih t 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Chumpih  t 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  Chumpih  t 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Chumpih  t 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Move back to Draftspace - I am very annoyed that someone actually made this article, this article was kept in my draft space for a reason. This person would have met WP:NOTABILITY threshold, if they had been elected to be Councillor as they are unique in terms of being a North Korean refugee - but they were not elected, therefore, I kept this article in Draftspace for the future if they were hypothetically elected going forward. Although, I do appreciate the good sourcing and also the information about this person's early life and pre-arrival in the UK. Theprussian (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Theprussian, ah, mea culpa. I both approved the AfC and nominated for deletion.  Prior to approving the AfC I should have confirmed that the subject was indeed an elected councillor.  The article was misleading at the time of move to article space and I trusted this incorrect statement.  I subsequently checked validity, spotted my oversight, ..., and here we are.  Indeed, draft is acceptable if this is WP:TOOSOON. But if there's little chance of future notability I would suggest Deletion, or perhaps move to your User space.  Chumpih  t 12:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment likewise I passed the article at new page patrol because the article stated she was elected as a councillor. If she isn’t then her notability is more doubtful. There may still be enough out there for a GNG pass but if this is going to be quickly draftified I won’t spend time looking.  Mccapra (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep putting aside the issue of whether she has been elected or not, I see significant coverage, BBC , ABC . These aren't trivial mentions, they are articles 100% devoted to her with in depth coverage.  That is all WP:GNG requires, and GNG is the mother of all notability guidelines.  Once it is met, it doesn't matter how other subordinate guidelines frame it.  It doesn't require anyone is elected to anything.  It may seem "soon", but the big story isn't whether or not she gets elected, it is that a North Korean made an extraordinary journey to get to the point that she could even run.  Extraordinary enough that several, high quality sources are devoting column inches devoted to it.  That is the absolute core of our criteria for inclusion.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SNG explicitly defers to Biographies and Politicians for subject-specific notability guidance, and it's a peer to WP:GNG as far as I can see. WP:BLP1E would suggest we need to look beyond a single event, and two of the links above pertain to Park's standing for a Councillor election. The other is interview for an in-house magazine of some UK charity completely independent of the UN and receive no funding from it 1a ; an interesting life story for sure, but does that confer notability?  Not a reliable source, and questionable journalistic independence - do they fact check?  Is there another notable event?  Chumpih  t 17:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying ABC and BBC aren't reliable? And she is only know for what, running only?  Don't bother replying, the closing admin will sort it.  It is neither necessary nor desirable to reply to every comment.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No intention to WP:Bludgeon, but a dangling question mark warrant something, rhetorical flair notwithstanding!! BBC and ABC are of course reliable - but they only cover because of this single event.  Is she otherwise noteable?  To answer your question, she appears to be known as "NK defector who ran for a councillor post" and little else.   There are many hundreds of NK defectors every year - do they all get an article?  Chumpih  t 17:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, only those with with multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources, since that IS our policy. Now please.... just stop.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do please clarify what part of WP:NBLP is met here. Please don't just defer to WP:GNG because as previously stated WP:SNG is a peer of that.  Unless you're telling me that WP:SNG is not a peer, in which case, genuinely, can you help me out by showing me where that is stated?  (Let's not even bother considering WP:NPOL.)  Chumpih  t 17:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, STOP WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. If you keep dragging out every keep, I absolutely will seek sanctions.  You've spoken your piece, now kindly pipe down.  You don't understand what you are talking about, so let others opine without your interference.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies. There's no need for the WP:ADHOM. Anyway,  has come up with some strong sources that demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED.  Perhaps it would be reasonable for this article to be kept.  Chumpih  t 06:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant media coverage and the first North Korean to run in British elections. Article can be improved to emphasize this, but it should be a keep for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seungri400 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources that establish GNG is met, here's more: The Times, Reuters, Japan Times and The Telegraph (some paywalled). The first section of NBIO/NBLP even covers GNG and states that "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria", so I don't understand why an argument for deletion is being made with regards to that. Pahunkat (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's because WP:NBASIC states Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, and all that coverage was from Spring 2021 and pertains to that single event. Chumpih  t 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's an article from The Conversation, The Guardian and another article from the Guardian before the election, as well as  (local media). There might be more, I only did a surface check. I think this counts as sustained coverage and passes BLP1E. Pahunkat (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are good sources. Thanks for going to the trouble of researching them.  Chumpih  t 21:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad I could help :-) Pahunkat (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of the sourcing is a bit iffy (Youtube) but there seems to be adequate reliable sourcing to meet standards. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2022 (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.