Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 9: Difference between revisions
→Fraser Committee: closing: Speedy close. Take it to the article's talk page. |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
||
* '''[[:Fraser Committee]]''' – Speedy close. Take it to the article's talk page. – <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 00:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC) <!--*--> |
* '''[[:Fraser Committee]]''' – Speedy close. Take it to the article's talk page. Google this text then call me a liar again. "The subcommittee findings regarding the Moon Organization may be summarized as follows: " If you are honest and care about the truth. – <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 00:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC) <!--*--> |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
||
Revision as of 01:38, 10 June 2011
Fraser Committee (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
To whom it may concern, I humbly ask you to replace the following page content on the Fraser Committee page. The following information has been recently deleted from the 'Findings of the committee' section by user hranf. It is an Accurate summary of the committees findings. The page and all related pages have been locked. Seems very UN-Wiki. Thank you for your time. The subcommittee findings regarding the Moon Organization may be summarized as follows: (1) The UC and numerous other religious and secular organizations headed by Sun Myung Moon constitute essentially one international organization. This organization depends heavily upon the interchangeability of its components and upon its ability to move personnel and financial assets freely across international boundaries and between businesses and nonprofit organizations. (2) The Moon Organization attempts to achieve goals outlined by Sun Myung Moon, who has substantial control over the economic, political, and spiritual activities undertaken by the organization in pursuit of those goals. (3) Among the goals of the Moon Organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers. (4) In pursuit of this and other goals, the Moon Organization has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to gain control over or establish business and other secular institutions in the United States and elsewhere, and has engaged in political activities in the United States. Some of these activities were undertaken to benefit the ROK Government or otherwise to influence U.S. foreign policy. (5) While pursuing its own goals, the Moon Organization promoted the interests of the ROK Government, and at times did so in cooperation with, or at the direction of, ROK agencies and officials. The Moon Organization maintained mutually beneficial ties with a number of Korean officials. (6) The Moon Organization established the KCFF ostensibly as a non- profit foundation to promote Korean-American relations, but used the KCFF to promote its own political and economic interests and those of the ROK Government. (7) The Moon Organization extensively used the names of Senators, Congressmen, U.S. Presidents, and other prominent Americans to raise funds and to create political influence for itself and the ROK Government. (8) A Moon Organization business is an important defense contractor in Korea. It is involved in the production of M-16 rifles, antiaircraft guns, and other weapons. (9) Moon Organization agents attempted to obtain permission from an American corporation to export M-16’s manufactured in Korea. The M-16’s are manufactured under a coproduction agreement approved by the U.S. Government, which puts M-16 production under the exclusive control of the Korean Government. Despite this, Moon Organization representatives appeared -- apparently on behalf of the Korean Government -- to negotiate an extension of the agreement. (10) The Moon Organization attempted to obtain a controlling interest in the Diplomat National Bank by disguising the source of funds used to purchase stock in the names of UC members. (12) The Moon Organization used church and other tax-exempt components in support of its political and economic activities. (13) Although many of the goals and activities of the Moon Organization were legitimate and lawful, there was evidence that it had systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency, and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws, as well as State and local laws related to charity fund, and that these violations were related to the organization’s overall goals of gaining temporal power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.46.58 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The original problem was a lack of notability and secondary sources. Since the original article's deletion, I have found more secondary sources that show notability. The majority of the text is the same, since there was no issues mentioned about that, but many sources have been found. The majority of the sources are newspapers, and I have hard copies of all of them, but I cannot seem to find them online. Thanks in advance. Also, something seems to be askew with the formatting of this page. I'd fix it if I knew how. Sorry. Goodbucket (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Formatting fixed. Anyway, it's a basic principle of Wikipedia, established both by WP:NMEDIA and by past AFDs on a variety of similar topics, that a radio or television personality of exclusively local notability, who cannot credibly claim some kind of fame or significance outside of a single market, is not notable enough to be included here, especially in a non-metropolitan midsize market — even if you can add sources demonstrating that they've been written about in the local newspaper, they're still not notable enough for inclusion here if you can't demonstrate that their notability extends in a meaningful way beyond that one local market.
- Your new version of the article, for the record, did not make a stronger claim of notability than the original version did: by your own admission, the text was virtually identical to the previous version, with the only substantive difference being the "references" — and it's not true that "the majority of the new sources are newspaper articles", at least not the ones you actually cited. A few of them were newspaper articles, granted, but many more of them were YouTube videos, blog entries, WikiNews articles, CDUniverse and iTunes profiles and, I kid you not, "Letters from Anthony Wilson-Smith(Editor of Maclean's Magazine) and others, available upon request" — none of which are acceptable sources at all. There's no requirement that our sources be web-accessible, but there is a requirement that they've been actually published by real media — meaning that many of the sources were junk that I had to discount when evaluating whether the article was properly sourced or not. And when I evaluated the valid sources (i.e. the newspaper articles), they failed right across the board to demonstrate that he's actually notable for anything more than being a media personality in one single media market. The claim that he's a bestselling author is still entirely unsourced, and his "notability" as a musician boils down to "he was once in a non-notable band with some other guys who went on to form a new, notable band without him". There's still nothing that would make him encyclopedically notable besides hosting a local radio talk show in a minor media market.
- So, in a nutshell, Version 2.0 did not make a more credible case for notability than Version 1.0 did, and did not genuinely resolve any of the original concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chapman (Canadian) — in fact, to be perfectly frank, the article was dancing perilously close to the edge of being an outright advertisement. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. For the record, the Youtube video was only included because I couldn't find anything else about the show (even though it seemed to have a fairly high budget, and was on the discovery channel), and the "bestselling" claim was taken out (it was derived from a misquote). Finally, it would have been nice to get a response three weeks ago when I posted on your talk page. Goodbucket (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I pointed out on WP:ANI, I never saw your first request in the first place, because two or three other people also posted to my talk page between your post and the next time I logged in. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I closed that window just before you posted that. My mistake Goodbucket (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I pointed out on WP:ANI, I never saw your first request in the first place, because two or three other people also posted to my talk page between your post and the next time I logged in. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. For the record, the Youtube video was only included because I couldn't find anything else about the show (even though it seemed to have a fairly high budget, and was on the discovery channel), and the "bestselling" claim was taken out (it was derived from a misquote). Finally, it would have been nice to get a response three weeks ago when I posted on your talk page. Goodbucket (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - I don't see that the decision in the AfD shouldn't apply to the most recent version of the article, if the sources haven't improved and the article text is identical. -- Atama頭 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question I'm not seeing anything in the cache. Can we get a temp. undelete please? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)