Talk:Goo Hara/Archive 1

Merge to main Kara article

Goo Hara has not had any main roles in movies nor TV shows, failing WP:ENTERTAINER, plus she has not had any musical activity apart from her group failing WP:MUSICBIO, where it states: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own" article." The article shows no signs of solo releases nor her being part of two notable groups. Hence I propose that the article be redirected to the page Kara (band). + Thermo Nuclear ☢ 20:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Invincible Youth would increase her notability as an entertainer (like, solo). Plus, the fact that she's considered the "prettiest" Kara member gives her a lot of coverage; for example, her confession of "slight" plastic surgery was heavily covered. That said, all this info's already on the Kara page. SKS (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, this is already covered in the Kara article- therefore there is no need for a solo page. Likewise, I can see how being part of Invincible Youth is notable, though nearly all idols have some sort of permanent position in a variety show. + Thermo Nuclear ☢ 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Already, Many of Girls' Generation members articles exist on Wikipedia. This can be understood in the same context. Although contents of the part of solo activities are still not yet fully I admitted. However, Its flaws should be corrected will be soon. This is a elementary article yet, and it's jury is still out on that. Please, Consider the subject carefully instead of only to assert merged.--Historiographer (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Girls' Generation members are a different matter imo, the members that have their own articles, have so for a good reason. For instance Jessica performed in Legally Blonde, Im Yoona acted in various dramas such as You are My Destiny, Taeyeon released various solo singles and has her own radio show (?). Goo Hara hasn't done much to prove notability for her own article- all that's worth noting is already on the main Kara article. + Thermo Nuclear ☢ 14:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it that way, She appeared as a lead role in "Strange Casting - Season 2". You just emphasized only notable Girls' Generation members, Seohyun and Yuri articles also hasn't done much to prove notability for her own article. However, You don't make objections to these. Think twice before doing anything rash.--Historiographer (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seohyun's notability greatly increased with her participation on We Got Married. Yuri, I would essentially put her in the same category of Hara, notability-wise. The reason for the GG solo articles is due to the fact that a) it's the top girl group in Korea at the moment, b) many of them have branched outside of the group for solo activities, and c) there are some...enthusiastic editors out there who repeatedly (re)create articles without discussion. Personally, I would support either way, leaning slightly towards inclusion, only because I know how frequently Korean media (news) covers her. SKS (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the Yuri article, when stating why each Girls' Generation member has their own page. However, you haven't state much why she is notable, yet only taking the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST approach. I'm aware that Goo Hara is like a tabloid obsession, so that can meet the first part of WP:GNG. + Thermo Nuclear ☢ 19:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fink that she doesn't need her own page- she rarely does things outside the group and that "Strange Casting" role isn't properly mentioned in the article. --92.6.205.196 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SKS, We Got Married is always changed their members. Seohyun's appearance in this show also not differ from Hara's "Strange Casting - Seasom 2", because two show often changed their members. Also, I don't understand some words that "create articles without discussion". Why do I have to be allowed making articles to you? Creating articles are essentially doesn't wrong. I think your words is an entirely different matter in this case. and ThermoNuclearWar, The think that Goo Hara is not notable person is just your opinions. Don't judge based on your own point of views. If you think this article have lack of context, you should think about articles improve first, not asserted merging , wasn't it?--Historiographer (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added "re" there for a reason. Of course it's a good thing to create articles. However, it's not necessarily a good thing to constantly recreate articles over and over when there are editors who disagree. (Not saying that you are; I'm just saying that it's happened a lot with the SNSD articles.) So it's a good thing we're talking. Again, I'm not saying that Goo Hara should not have an article. I'm just saying that I see both sides. SKS (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one who thinks Goo Hara is non-notable, the random IP and SKS can see where I'm coming from. Similarly you're asserting notability, based upon your point of view, you can also improve the article, which you seem not to be doing. + Thermo Nuclear ☢ 14:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hara's profile is nothing but copy and paste from the main Kara page. It'd be understandable if it was extended information, but it isn't. There is no point for her to have her own article.--Daydreamer198 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion has been made on the merge for the past month. Unless you disagree, I'm likely to redirect it back to the Kara article. I haven't seen much improvement to the article, and what stands in the 'article saving' biography section can be easily incorporated into her section on the Kara page. I personally don't see how redirecting the article 24 days after the end of the discussion is being hasty. + TNW 16:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What biography section? It's basically still copy and paste from what is already written on the Kara page, with a reference from Allkpop for crying out loud. Historiographer, if you're the only one who feels Goo Hara needs her own article, you should at least be the one to add updates and expand it.--Daydreamer198 (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I'm so busy that I barely have time to improving its context. Please, Keep your shirt on.--Historiographer (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't have time doesn't mean that the article should be left alone. Plus that is not the way to talk to someone, Historiographer. --92.12.124.186 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two IP's comments is like somebody's puppet. By the way, I already noticed that I'm so busy, and so I cannot do improving this article. Thus, I temporarily recant my opinion. However, I will takes part in improving it as occasion serves.--Historiographer (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking... Regardless, you could always make a draft version and improve it till notability is established. + TNW 19:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hara is notable person

Like Sulli Choi, Krystal Jung, Victoria Song, Kim Hyung Jun -- Tsuchiya Hikaru (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

poor credibility

how is this article not just another case of fanboyism/fangirlism? what about this person is notable that it cannot be merged with the kara group article? this article states that goo ha-ra attends school at sungshin university. while this might have been mentioned on korean tv, there is no proper citation. the linked source mentions nothing about goo ha-ra being a sungshing university student; only mentions that she deferred enrollment. my korean isn't perfect, but reviewing just one (false) source shows that some parts of this article were fabricated, falsified, improperly cited. 211.179.47.182 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koo Ha-ra?

I know romanization of Korean names is far from an exact science but can we at least get a consensus on this page? The article name is Koo Hara yet in the text it's spelled Goo Ha-ra. Personally I haven't seen "Koo" used anywhere, "Goo" seems to be the far more popular version but I'm not familiar with the usual protocol for this. DragonFury (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was under "Goo" for the longest time but someone just randomly (?) decided to switch it up. Personally, as long as there's proof of it, the name doesn't have to follow the "official" Wikipedia spelling. SKS (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the editing history it appears the editor based it on the fact that Hara's official twitter has it listed as "Koo Hara". But every single other source has it listed as Goo Hara. Unless someone can provide some more evidence in support of the "Koo Hara" spelling I'll be changing it back in the near future. DragonFury (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been long enough now, moving back to "Goo Hara" DragonFury (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: "Goo Ha-ra" DragonFury (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least two music videos have it spelled 'Koo Hara' (specifically Rock U and Good Day season 2), but while those two music videos spell Park Gyuri consistently, another video (Same Heart) spells it 'Gyu lee'. Not sure if this is helpful but thought it was worth adding. Jakjawagon (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

I don't edit all the K-pop articles on this site but there are plenty of pages where there is no section for endorsements and even a few where the section was removed for the same reasons I've been citing here. In fact, that's the reason I've removed the section here AGAIN. A plain list of endorsements adds squat about Goo Ha-ra, regardless of how many sources you add. DragonFury (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kpop fans know how important CF/Endorsements are, not just for idols but for other k-stars. K-media even got charts of stars with the most CFs/stars with the most CF income every year. And endorsements has been huge part of Hara's individual income. That's why the section should stay.

Next time don't delete the original message (also sign your comment). And what the K-media does is not relevant for this article since this is not the Korean Wikipedia. It's the English Wikipedia and an endorsement lists hold no value on here DragonFury (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add; you want a good endorsements section? Read the Girls' Generation article, properly written, properly cited and actually adds value to the article instead being nothing more than a collection of brand names. Make it look like that and I'll be happy to leave it in. DragonFury (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the endorsements hold no value here. Like I said, Kpop fans (including international fans) think that endorsements are important. The more popular you are the more endorsements you get and the richer you are. You have to remember that kpop idols main sources of income are Concerts(Tours) and CFs. And i see that you're also quite active on Sistar's page. Why don't you do something first about their endorsement section? 125.167.14.228 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some awards

As per prior consensus, I removed non-notable and fan-run awards. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Goo Hara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]