Deletion of Moonies

Comment: Keep''' ''Enough well-sourced material has been added so that  has been satisfied.''  Although I think this is an interesting article (I am a "Moonie" myself and also worked on the article), I have to agree with the nominator that it doesn't rise to the level of otability based on the sources given. BTW the word "Moonies" is already mentioned in Unification Church. If much more than that was added to that article it would be giving undue weight since 90% or more of UC members do not live in English speaking nations and have nothing to do with the word "Moonies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: Surprised this discussion is ongoing.  It's clearly notable as a term and Cirt has done a good job fleshing it out.  For those swinging  around, remember that the threshold for not deleting is whether sourcing exists to support a separate article, not whether the article has been fleshed out at the moment.  ''...it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present.'' &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: I would note that the recently-introduced 'Commentary' section is no more than a string of bare mentions ("trivial" coverage as that term is defined in ) of "Moonie" in various sources (and in one occasion in a book title). I would suggest that this level of ''usage'' is true of hundreds of thousands (possibly even millions) of words or phrases, and that this mere ''usage'' does not bestow any particular notability. In no case does it appear that the cited usage/mention contains any more information about the term than is already covered by the lead paragraph (or a trivial variation thereof
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)