Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ha Jae-Suk

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Jae-suk

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

This article was nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7, but since it credibly claims notability as a actress, it needs the full scrutiny of AfD. The credits all seem to be accurate, but for (fairly significant) supporting rather than starring roles. I haven't found any significant coverage in English, but ~~I expect there's~~ there might be some in Korean. cc: Mcmatter. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete A7~~ - being an actress does not establish Notability, it may have some semblance to significance but notability is established by meeting WP:NACTOR which this article fails. Not to mention it is an unreferenced BLP.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:MichaelQSchmidt has added Korean references however I can only still go off what I can find in English as I don't speak or read Korean, with that being said WP:NACTOR still does not seem to be met as a significant role must be played which has not been established. WP:GNG may be applicable if we get some translations and confirm coverage for this actress.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... thank you. I'm sorry you do not read Korean... but it's not an issue nor a deletion rationale. In your due diligence, did you consider use of something like Google Translate to at least get the gist of source content? Admittedly, my own WP:BEFORE tends to be kicked into high gear when a brand new article is set for a speedy leas than one hour after being contributed,[1] though perhaps suggesting to the author that he move it to a userspace for additional work could have been reasonable. She being a named character Na Yoo-ri nine years ago in all the episodes of Alone in Love (2006), as Jo Mi-Ran in the multi-award-winning My Too Perfect Sons (2009), and as Lee Hee Joo in the award-winning Pasta (2010) were my first clues that WP:ENT was met... and motivation to look further.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my choice to CSD this article originally, the instant a page is saved in the article space it should meet the requirements it is up to the author to prove notability or at least make a claim of significance, a filmography is not a claim to significance. Since I cannot read the only references found for this person my opinions are invalidated according to current Wikipedia consensus.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that a topic should meet inclusion criteria, but a use or not of available sources is not the issue and CSD is a different standard than is WP:N. Enough English-language sources were available through searches [2][3] to allow a reasonable inference that Korean-language sourcing for a Korean topic might offer even more information,[4] and that under WP:DEL#REASON and its WP:ATD, deletion was perhaps not the better option. Your worries have been addressed so no harm, no foul. And while I added a few sources and was the more "vocal" at this AFD, my grateful thanks go out to User:Staticshakedown who was working on the article even as it was being tagged for deletion and who quietly continued throughout this discussion to turn someone else's stub-with-potential into a decent start-class. Kudos for ~~him~~ her awesome work ! Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm a "she", for the record... static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Corrected above) No slight intended. Terrific work.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as it appears in looking that this South Korean actress meets WP:ENT AND as a topic is not unsourcable and, as she gets lots of attention in Korean media,[5][6][7] I apply WP:NRVE. Admittedly the article can benefit from attention from Korean-reading Wikipedians, but needing attention is not a valid deletion criteria. User:Neil P. Quinn was right to decline Mcmatter's speedy request. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pretty sure with the work that's been done to the article these last few days, it's good enough to keep now. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 10:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS's rationale and Staticshakedown's work. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2015 (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.