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 and move to List of Unification Church members. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unificationists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is not needed. There is already a category "Unificationists." In addition most a good part of the people listed here are also listed in True Family. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I temporarily moved unsourced entries to the talk page. I was intending to soon move them back, sourcing each one. True Family naturally would only discuss individuals in the "True Family", and not other notable members of the Unification Church. Please see the talk page for plenty of other notable members that will soon be sourced back at the main list page. Quite frankly I am a bit surprised to see this nomination after the last one resulted in "Keep", and coming so soon after I began a cleanup of the page by moving unsourced info to the talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'If Kept Rename "Unificationist" is waaaay too confusing. The Unification of Ireland, the Unification of Germany, and other national unificiation movements would be an obvious meaning for this list. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76.66.193.90 (talk · contribs) made a similar suggestion at the prior AFD [1]. This actually is a good idea. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on current content. There are only eight people listed on the page now, seven of whom are members of the founder's family or former in-laws. If there are reliable sources to support the inclusion of other people whose names have been moved to the talk page (because they were previously unsourced), then those people should be moved back to the article with appropriate sourcing included. I might reconsider if that were done. By the way, a better title would be List of Unification Church members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my above comment? Did you look at the talk page? Did you note that I am going to do a rework of the article and add additional sourced entries? Cirt (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing to neutral in recognition of the work done by Cirt to repopulate and source the list. I believe my delete recommendation was legitimate at the time it was made, but now that Cirt's rework has been done, deletion is no longer necessary. I still support moving the article to a better title assuming it is kept. (The reason I am "neutral" instead of recommending "keep" is based on my view of lists in general, not a criticism of this particular list as revised.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename: With the rationale given by nominator, it literally can't be deleted for those reasons. "Most" of the people already there means we'd be losing content. Even 1 character of content deleted without a new home is still lost content. That's picky, but something Wikipedia cares about. More still, there being a category doesn't mean there can't be a list page or vice-versa. They have different purposes. True Family is kind of limited to family, so even having 1 more name of someone that is independently notable on top of their membership to this faith, the article is justified. Weak points, I entirely admit this, but I can't think of any direct policy that would promote a delete. "Not needed" is a weak justification for nomination unless it's literally a copy-paste job, and instead is trying to cling on to WP:ALLORNOTHING. It's already here, and there's no reason to think that WP:BURDEN fell through the cracks and this has to be vetted from scratched. That's not what AfD is. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would have no objections to a rename as mentioned just above ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Please note that I am in the middle of ongoing work on this article. I agree with 76.66.192.35 (talk · contribs), Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs), and Datheisen (talk · contribs) that if kept, the page have a rename to List of Unification Church members. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Earlier AfD decided to keep. The list will probably be useful to people studying the church, which has come into greater media attention in the last couple of months. The inclusion of former members, however, might give rise to BLP concerns. Is a person defined by his former membership in a church? Some are former members of several. BTW being a child of Rev. and Mrs. Moon does not necessarily mean that that person is also a member of his church, as much as we church members might wish that was so. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I have done a considerable amount of work on the page List of Unificationists. It now has every single entry cited, with 31 sources used [2]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict with Cirt, who has just done some fine work]:

• Keep and move to List of Unification Church members. Reading the above, it's clear that the nomination to delete was ill-advised. Cirt has now found references for all the entries (with WP articles) that didn't have one and has brought the list up to standards. Metropolitan90's "vote" to delete should be disregarded on the grounds that he apparently didn't read what Cirt had just written. In any case, at the very least, his argument was invalidated when Cirt found the references and restored entries which were temporarily moved to the talk page. The page serves a useful purpose for those studying Unificationism (and this would be an argument for including those few who are of vital importance to Unificationism but do not have their own articles, such as Won Pil Kim and Yejin Moon). I share a concern similar to Steve's that including people just because they were former members raises BLP issues. In previous discussions there was a pretty broad consensus that those for whom former membership was not a "defining characteristic" should not be included. That would only clearly exclude Tim Folzenlogen, but perhaps others should be excluded as well. Putting deceased people in the same category as anti-church activists seems inappropriate. Members of the True Family who are not church members should certainly be retained, however. Parentheses with "no longer a church member" might be a better alternative than having a separate section for these few. -Exucmember (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - there are other lists of members of small religions (eg List of Scientologists and List of rinzai Buddhists), and there's no need to lose this. WP has lists as well as categories because they serve different needs. Categories, for example, provide no information about who the person in the category is - you have to go to the article. The name, though, is confusing for the reason stated above - Unification has mathematical and political meanings, as well as this religious meaning. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : a sourced article that meets WP:N. Thanks Cirt for your good work. -- Europe22 (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has been improved with better sources and unsourced people taken off. However almost half is a reposting of the material in True Family and I still don't think a list is needed for the few others when they already have a category so that interested people can look them up. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the majority of the list is composed of others that are not members of the Moon family. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I said "almost half" was on the Moon family. We are still talking about a very small number of people. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as the number is larger than the Moon family, which has its own article as well. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with the article was just shown when Junko Sakurada was put back with very thin sources, a 1999 Australian newspaper story and a more recent American book. If she is a UC member she does not seem to make that public, since it was not mentioned in her article until today. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also one person listed twice, and it's already a really short list. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. If you wish to question the reliability of any individual source, you may do so on the article's talk page and if that does not resolve it you can bring the matter to WP:RSN. But I highly doubt others will agree with you that a book published by University of Chicago Press is not reliable. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were wrong about stock market regulation. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep iff renamed to something less confusing. Jonathunder (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most of the above recommendations are to rename to "List of Unification Church members". ;) Cirt (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/rename As pointed out above, we have other lists of members of small new religious movements. The list includes entries that aren't covered by the category, including former members.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• The article certainly should be renamed to "Unification Church members" if its intention is to list them. There are also Unificationists (in the sense of being believers in Rev. Moon) who are not members of the Unification Church, and (as others have said) there are other contexts in which the word "unificationist" is used. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that group is left out. There are a couple of Catholic priests who left their church to get married by Rev. Moon. As it is the list consists of 3 groups: Rev. Moon's family, members of his church who have WP articles, and some people who were members but left. The issue of WP:Original research could be raised since I would be very surprised if anyone else has felt like putting the 3 together before this list. (However my main objection is still that a list is not needed for such a small number of people.) Northwestgnome (talk) 14:36, 17 December 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.