Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Seong-won

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Park Seong-won[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable, little references, and there is a serious bit of Conflict of interest as well as the article is written by User:Park Seong-won. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please. I agree with CyberGhostface about notability. To be a member of committeeis good, but many professor and priest/reverend beloning the committee. The committee is maybe notable, but not to member of the committee. If somebody famous, maybe they should wait until another editor decide to write the article. Nxo (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Keep. I change after I look at the google's search results given by Phil Bridger. We can see academic actvities and publication, religious activity of the Park Seong-won, in English and Korean. I change to keep and also perhaps the editor will dispense with the superfluous detail on the family of the Park Seong-won. Nxo (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't just any old committee that the subject's a member of, it's the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. 159 people belong to it. He seems to get a fair number of mentions in these news sources and these books, but I don't have time to go through them in detail at the moment. Conflict of interest is a reason for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is a good point about the notability of the committee, Phil Bridger. However, are members of the committee notable simply through their membership? Also, I add the perspective by letting you know that their isno page for this *Park Seong-won in korean wikipedia [1] . Nxo (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, members are not notable simply by virtue of their membership, which is why I haven't recommended keeping without looking through the potential sources that I found. However membership of the central committee of an organisation that represents over 500 million people is a good indication that substantial coverage in reliable sources will probably exist, so it's worth having a careful look for them before deciding what to do with this article. Have you tried looking for Korean sources? I'm afraid my ability to search is limited to the Latin alphabet (or Cyrillic at a stretch). Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, in the search link you provided I can see a few results in Korean. I will look them further, and add as the source if relevant.Nxo (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A websearch on the Korean for Park Seong-won (박성원) did not yielding good result. But I addition of "WCC" and I received many results on Naver [2]. In Korean result, their is the report of the mainstream Korean newspaper such as Kukmin Ilbo, etc. So maybe they could class the "reliable sources". And Phil Bridger resarch show that Park Seong-won is author of book chapter on church history in volume published by mainstream publsiher [3].Nxo (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I understand the points made above, but the bottom line is that independent news coverage in English of him is practically nonexistent, and this is the English Wikipedia.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" simply refers to the language in which it is written. It isn't a restriction on what sources can be used. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the importance of the body is sufficiently great that each individual person is notable. Just like any top level international body for a major profession. He's there as the representative of World Alliance of Reformed Churches, also a major international body. The professorship is probably notable also, though I cannot judge adequately for lack of sources I can read. DGG (talk) 03:49, 9 February 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.