Talk:Derek Han

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good job. Thanks for creating this page

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the pianist Derek Han inherited a "a barrel of cash" and became a successful financier?

• Source: https://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2012-06/08/content_15486933.htm

• • ALT1: ... that when Derek Han told his parents he wanted to be a pianist, they "were afraid [he] was going to live on the sidewalk and wing it"? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/sarasota-herald-tribune/186045378/, p. 72
  • ALT2: ... that being a financier gave pianist Derek Han "a deeper appreciation of music and a real solace from it also"? Source: https://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2012-06/08/content_15486933.htm
  • ALT3: ... that Derek Han was a successful pianist and financier? Source: Ibid.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Elastigirl, Template:Did you know nominations/Mamadali Kurbanov
  • Comment: Please bear with me as I won't be able to do the QPQs until tomorrow (PST). Done!

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 55 past nominations.

CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC).

• Article nominated on the day it was created. 7518 characters/1228 words long. Supported by almost exclusively by primary sources (somewhat of a weakness, but acceptable as he died recently).

I did a spot check for this claim: "Between 1988 and 1992, Han also held advisory roles with the Zagreb Philharmonic Orchestra and Moscow Symphony Orchestra", which cites China Daily, but it failed verification. Please double check.

Hooks (except ALT1, which isn't readily accessible) are supported.

Please ping me when QPQs are done and the comments are addressed. --Երևանցի ^talk 09:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: Thanks for taking the time to review this! The cited China Daily source lists Han's advisory roles with dates in an infobox on the right-hand side. As for your WP:PRIMARY concerns, strictly speaking I think the only three sources that could be considered such are the Dignity Memorial obituary, which is cited twice, the overview from La Musica and the record of Han's divorce, each of which are cited once. The others are news reports of Han's death, which provide an overview of his career along with comments from people who knew him. Even if one were to define these sources as primary along with the aforementioned two, they are cited a total of 14 times versus 27 times for all other sources. If you could clarify this for me, I'd be grateful so I can keep it in mind for the future. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. None of the newspapers are strictly primary. Disregard that. My concern was the absence of book citations that would've given the article more weight and unequivocally establish his notability. But that in no way affects the DYK nom. China Daily checks out. Not smart of them to post those details as an image.

Looks good to go. I'd go with either the first hook or ALT3. --Երևանցի ^talk 07:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

/* Later years */

• 'Please Remove Later Years, these are all claims from an old interview, not a valid source, if anything it should be noted those were claims:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

V346720971 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I am closing this request, given the discussion with @CurryTime7-24: and @UpTheOctave!: and also my own review of the page. Fiske (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Removal of non-notable spouse names

Recently removed the names of the spouses from the article because they appear to be non-notable private individuals. While the information is cited, it may constitute undue personal detail and does not seem essential to the subject’s notability or biography.

If there are reliable sources demonstrating that these individuals are significant in the context of the subject’s life or public contributions, I am happy to reconsider and restore the information.

--V346720971 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

They themselves are not notable and are only mentioned in this article because of their connection to the subject, which is public information published in reliable sources. They are not used in this article to promote or establish notability of the subject. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification regarding the inclusion of spouses and other private individuals. I understand that their names appear in reliable sources and are mentioned only in connection with the subject. My concern is to ensure the article remains neutral and focuses on information that is significant to the subject’s notability.

Specifically:

• **Spouse names and trivial details**: Some details, such as where the subject met a spouse, seem to be minor personal information that does not add encyclopedic value. Summarizing this as "he was married twice" or similar might convey the essential facts while reducing unnecessary personal detail.

V346720971 (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. There isn't any guideline that defines when details about a subject's spouse are trivial. Again, the article stays on-topic; it does not discuss the spouses in great detail, except when relevant to the subject himself. Such as in the case of the $50 million that he inherited through his first wife. Which, again, is public information cited in reliable sources. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@V346720971, your use of markdown indicators like "**" for bold indicate you may be using an AI to generate these comments. Per WP:AITALK and WP:LLMCHAT, please communicate in your own words. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not, but thanks anyways ! ~2026-14695-71 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not but thanks anyways! Any feedback on my actual comment? Cheers! V346720971 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@V346720971: I will admit I find that very hard to believe given similar posts on your talk page, but, c'est la vie. Since you ask, my thoughts are in line with CurryTime: this seems to be a non-issue, as there is no valid reason provided to remove this content. It is normal to include this sort of information, and I do not think that the space given at present is enough to justify concerns over WP:PROMO or WP:DUE. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on self-promotional interview content

I have noticed that several statements in the article are presented as established facts but are sourced solely to interviews with the subject or with associates (friends, family, colleagues). Some of these statements appear to be subjective opinions or self-promotional, yet they are written as certain fact.

In order to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality and comply with guidelines on reliable sources and undue weight, I suggest that we review these sections. Potential actions include:

• Rewriting statements to clearly attribute claims to the original speaker.
• Removing content that is overly self-promotional or not independently verified.

Feedback from other editors is welcome.

--V346720971 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing promotional about this article; quotes by the subject or by various newspapers are properly attributed. So it's difficult to understand what your concerns regarding these are. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, and we may have different views on this content. I’m happy to leave it for other editors to weigh in and reach a consensus on whether any changes are necessary. V346720971 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)