Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6.3 Resistance movemnet

6.3 Resistance movemnet

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) The Gnome (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

6.3 Resistance movemnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

with spelling 6.3 Resistance movement (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Substandard sandbox article in main space, created by page move by original authour The Banner talk 13:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 13:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Is it non notable or failing some policy. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. If the article is kept, it should be moved to 6.3 Resistance movement (the correct spelling of movement) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. No policy based rationale for deletion offered. The nominator states the article is "substandard" but fails to state what Wikipedia standard it falls below and why that amounts to a reason for deletion. SpinningSpark 15:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Nom fails to advance a deletion argument for what appears to be a fairly clear notable topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - I see little reference to "6.3 * movement" or "June 3 * movement" in English language sources, but the popular opposition to talks between Korea and Japan in 1964 is encyclopedic, and if it is called the 6.3 movement in Korea, that seems an appropriate name to use here. An article about the negotiations more broadly would be nice. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Request speedy close as keep, as nominator. I give up. No one seems to be interested in quality. Sad. The Banner talk 17:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • When everyone disagrees with you, you might want to consider the possibility, however remote, that you might be wrong. SpinningSpark 21:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • As you can see above and below, there are more people concerned about the quality. The Banner talk 07:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Nomination lacks clarity on rationale. Subject is notable Lubbad85 (☎) 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Chominkook/6.3 Resistance movement I'm sorry, but the nominator is correct. We have a process for preventing mainspace creations by non-confirmed editors for a reason, and the area of Japan-Korea relations is a sand-viper-pit filled with editors who create multiple accounts and make a dozen or so edits with each one before putting them to sleep. This article's creator doesn't appear to be one, but they definitely should have been forced to put the page up for review before it was mainspaced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If you think the article is not neutral, tag it as such, and explain any problems on the talk. Just saying 'it may not be neutral, so it should be reviewed first' is not a valid reason for deletion (or userfication). Draft and reviews are optional on English Wikipedia, and any editor who wants to has the right to publish things in the mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the article not being neutral. I said the article should have been curated before being put in the mainspace in such a clumsy fashion that its title was misspelled. I actually still think it needs to be moved, since I'm pretty sure the "6.13" style is a feature of CJK languages that is tolerated in English publications from the region, but is not actually common in English: the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami is frequently referred to as "3.11" (pronounced san ten ichi-ichi) in Japan, as are the September 11 terrorist attacks called "9.11" (pronounced kyū ten ichi-ichi). We do have 9.11, but it was created by Jiang (talk · contribs), a China-focused editor, a good six months after 9/11. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Student project (no easy way to mark those now that the Educational Extension has been depreciated). Topic seems encyclopedic. The article may need a grammar copyedit, but the nom has failed to identify any serious problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously. An event that led to 1,120 arrests of students, politicians and journalists who led the protests at the time. Lee Myung-bak, Lee Jae-oh, Sohn Hak-kyu and 348 people served six months in the Seodaemun Prison due to rebellion and sedition is notable. How can someone issue such a substandard AfD nomination? This is not a quality review about the present state of the article (indeed, quality could be improved). Pldx1 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The argument was never that the topic was not notable, but that such a poorly written mess should not have been allowed in the mainspace, so actually it's the above !vote that is sub-standard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: It seems someone has fixed the spelling. @Hijiri 88, I think the average American is unable to evaluate the CONTENT of the article since we've never heard of this event. You may find the article sub-standard, in which case fix it. If it's really that badly done, then take the good parts of the content and make a second page, then re-nominate this page for deletion citing the reason that you've now created a new page (provide links) that corrects all or most of the basic errors. I'm assuming the article is so badly mangled that it can't be re-worked in place? But instead needs a fresh start? -- Nomopbs (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic appears to be notable and to pass GNG. The article has citations, and there is a corresponding article on Korean wiki. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• It is funny to see that a request for speedy close as keep by the nominator is plain ignored. The Banner talk 11:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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.