Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Korea/Closed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was copyvio [1]. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos washing machines

[edit]

Weak delete I'm sure there's something of relevance or interest in there but where? Eddie.willers 00:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nonsense/drivel. --Blackcap | talk 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • O.K., I just did some checking and found that this article was completely plagarised from here. "Chaos washing machines" gets a mere 67 results on Google (singular "Chaos washing machine" gets 63), the first two links being WP's. I had thought it was nonsense, and I was wrong. But it is pretty nn, and also copyvio. --Blackcap | talk 02:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is probably the original source: http://www.ama.edu.ph/research/amacc_e-journal_f/the_butterfly.htm . However I can't believe you would describe it as "non-notable". Kappa 02:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? Well, maybe I'm not thinking of something... but still, it seems like a largely ridiculous article to me, anyway, and that feeling is only exacerbated by finding so few Google hits and that it's plagiarised (suggesting that there isn't enough material out there to write an article about it). It's somewhat interesting, but not very notable (IMHO). --Blackcap | talk 16:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm surprised you would say it's non-notable, because it's both a big thing (a new product from a large company) and distinct from other things of its type (by having a "gimmick"). It's creative and has a large audience, and so it seems highly notable. Kappa 19:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. But there probably is an article to be written about the relationship between science and advertising.Zeimusu | Talk page 01:14, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
  • Keep, Vfd is not cleanup, maybe someone could provide a reason for deletion that has some basis in policy? Kappa 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to keep if copyvio is rewritten. Kappa
  • Delete, or, at best, merge non-copyvio stuff into Chaos theory#Popular conceptions. --Calton | Talk 09:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards a merge with Washing machine. I don't think these appliances are really notable in their own right, but they do represent an interesting development in Washing Machine Drivel (WMD). -- Visviva 09:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, Visviva: Is your vote "merge," or are you still thinking about it? --Blackcap | talk 16:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Goldstar is half of Lucky Goldstar, now known as LG. -- Visviva 09:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE-Merge back to Chaos Theory This article was a subsection in the Chaos Theory article, and was removed because it was marketing hooey. I think we should remerge it back to Chaos theory, under a new heading, like Chaos Theory in Popular Culture... or something....
  • Delete if it was removed from Chaos theory for being a marketing hooey, it should simply get deleted. Groeck 17:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Paul Klenk
    • Comment Do you have a reason for your vote? --Blackcap | talk 20:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic. Elfguy 01:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Merge into Positioning (marketing) as an example thereof as that article currently has none and could use several. Caerwine 03:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure I understand why you think it ought to go into Positioning (marketing) of all the places it could go. Some people think that this constitutes a valid article in and of its own right, so I don't think that if it belongs anywhere it should be as an example in an article about marketing. You can't just have a few paragraphs on a washing machine in the midst of a business article, so that would completely eliminate anything you want to say about CWM apart from the marketing sector. It seems to me that it would be much more fit (if the vote is to keep or merge it) to either leave it as its own article with a link from chaos theory, or merge it with aforesaid chaos theory. --Blackcap | talk 16:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Response Because as far as I can tell, the whole CWM concept is primarily an attempt to create a new market segment within the market for washing machines to make use of the buzz that surrounded chaos theory in the early 1990s. If there's anything out there that indicates that this was more than just marketing buzz, then it might warrant a separate article, but if so, why ain't it in the article already. Caerwine 20:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K. Thanks for clarifying that. --Blackcap | talk 20:41, August 29, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Since we prevail on placing articles at the most common usage, and the companies website itself refers to it as KTF, I'm not going to move it myself. I will, however, create the full-name as a redirect. Since that redirect will have a trivial history, anyone can WP:BOLDLY move the existing article over it if they want to. -Splash 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTF

[edit]

This was previously deleted as blatant advertising. However, on VFU it was pointed out that the article was rewritten just before its deletion, and not all voters had been aware of that. So, it was decided to give it another chance. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 07:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Large company and the article seems to be fairly neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a problem now. --Apyule 07:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the rewrite solved the problem. - Mgm|(talk) 08:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks alright to me __earth 08:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's a very poorly written article. As it stands, it is a two-paragraph summary of the company's alleged business dealings. Complete contravention of the NPOV policy: everything written about it is from the company's point of view. What do its competitors think of the company? How do its customers feel about it? Any studies on customer satisfaction? If so, how well has it done? Who do the governments, local and national, think about it? Has it had legal troubles? What is its economic history? What role has it played in its industry? Is it merely one of several players? Are those claims about its finances accurate? Why is it notable, aside from having a lot of customers, which is something millions and millions of companies around the world have? What particular notability has it a claim to that warrants mention in an encyclopedia? The fact that it introduced ring tones (I don't know, I'm just asking, as that seems to be the only claim of uniqueness I can see)? These questions pertain to WP:NPOV and WP:N. Next, we have questions pertaining to WP:V. To write a good encyclopedia article, the subject must be eminently verifiable from multiple reputable, independent sources. What sources were used to write this article? I see links to the company website. What primary or secondary sources were used to write this work? Or can be used by us if we wish to expand it? Do any exist? WP articles cannot be products of original research, they must be based on multiple reputable primary or secondary sources. See WP:RS. Like thousands of other articles currently on WP, this one seems to contravene some major WP policies and guidelines. Problem is what to do with articles that may indeed be about a notable subject (and this one may well be, I don't know; not enough is said about it for one to know), but which are in their present state really weak (and will likely always be weak)? After studying the policies, it seems to me this conundrum is open to interpretation, and is in fact the source of much dispute on AfD. My vote here is to delete (mainly because I think it will be near impossible for WP editors to source the material (what exists, that is) to write a good article per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:NOR), but equally many well-meaning editors will vote the other way. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  09:35:19, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • One last issue: The page is currently called KTF, the abbreviated form of the company's name. As it will likely be kept, could someone check if the title is in keeping with WP:MOS? Regards—Encephalon | ζ  09:38:16, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • Delete Not NPOV. DV8 2XL 13:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "not NPOV" is not a reason for deletion, feel free to edit the article. Kappa 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep POV, needs some more verification Roodog2k 14:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant company. -- DS1953 00:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough Dottore So 01:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable company. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company appears to have annual gross revenue over US$5 billion, and is listed on its country's main stock exchange -- clearly notable. Google reveals a variety of articles referencing the company. The article should be kept at KTF as that appears to be the way the company refers to itself in English. --Metropolitan90 02:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sensible votes people. I checked WP:MOS, which astonishingly does not appear to have a section on abbreviations, but does have one on acronyms. Cheers—Encephalon | ζ  04:19:55, 2005-09-02 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hanbitsoft

[edit]

Was labeled to be Transwikied to Wiktionary, but not a dicdef. Article does not show notability. Kushboy 03:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, feel free to esblish notability instead of listing for deletion. Kappa 04:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand. Probably notable, but you wouldn't know it from the current article. --Alan Au 08:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the article some more beyond Kappa's earlier improvements. Note, however, that the company's name is HanbitSoft with a capitalized S. I've renamed all pages that link to Hanbitsoft to point to HanbitSoft, and created HanbitSoft as a temporary redirect to Hanbitsoft. When this VFD concludes, please move the article to HanbitSoft. -D. Wu 16:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I originally marked this article as dictionary-like, as it looked like merely a definition. Maybe it should've been marked as a request for expansion though, as it was not literally a dictionary definition. Regardless, everything is looking just fine now to me! -- Jugalator 09:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. DS1953 04:32, August 12, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.10.78 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Mobile army surgical hospital. Now for the justification of making such a call when nobody voted "redirect". The article is an essay, and as has been pointed out, such essays should not be in Wikipedia, therefore I will be removing the essay from the "front line" by converting this to a redirect. However a number of users want some of the content merged with Mobile army surgical hospital. This is not all that easy to do, and since I am a lazy administrator, I cannot be bothered to do so. Instead, I will give other users a chance to do the merging, so I will leave the history intact. Anyone may now look into the history, and merge parts from this essay at their leisure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an easy link to the essay just use this link. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M*A*S*H developments in Korea

[edit]

Should be merged with Mobile army surgical hospital Gorrister 12:06, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. humblefool®Deletion Reform 01:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ID eNTITY

[edit]

This article was speedy deleted as nonsense, but was undeleted after discussion at WP:VFU. This appears to be some sort of cartoon. I myself am unsure of whether this cartoon is notable so no vote. If kept the article will need some wikifikation/cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Lifeisunfair. - Mgm|(talk) 20:42, July 18, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Tagged as copyvio. --malathion talk 05:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jung, tak young

[edit]

Maybe this individual is significant, but this is a resume, not an article, and almost certainly posted by the subject (see Image:DSCN7012.JPG, currently on ifd, and note the username of its contributor and the email address given). —Cryptic (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Tak-Young Jung. Numerous solo art exhibitions around the world. Pburka 01:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The capitalization needs to be fixed, but I wouldn't support changing the name order unless that is the individual's preference or widespread usage. -- Visviva 13:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The artist's own website indicates that he hyphenates his first name, and the Wikipedia convention is to place first names first. Note that the artist's e-mail address is tak_young_jung, so he seems to be a bit flexible about the ordering and the hyphenation. Pburka 14:12, August 6, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Choi

[edit]

University student. Doesn't seem notable. Probably vanity. Flowerparty talk 02:22, 1 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hollym

[edit]

they have a website at hollym.com and as you can see it's just an ordinary publisher selling few books online. Don't see any importance. The user just spams himself, his books, and his publisher. See also: Roadmap to Korean, Faces of Korea & Richard Harris (writer)

  • delete --Richhil 13:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable publisher of Korea-related books, with a (small) international presence. Certainly at least as notable as many other articles in Category:Book publishers. -- Visviva 16:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am about to try my Amazon test. I am going to search for books published by this publisher on Amazon.com. If they have published any books with an Amazon sales rank number less than 200,000, then I consider them a publisher of real interest to English-speakers and will vote to keep. Here goes. 167 books listed. Sort by: bestselling. Top is: Minjung's Pocket English-Korean & Korean-English Dictioanry [sic], ISBN 0930878027, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #154,297 in Books. Next listed is: Korea: Tradition and Transformation : A History of the Korean People by Andrew C. Nahm, ISBN 0930878566, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #606,866 in Books. The fact that 167 books are listed should somehow count for something. I conclude that they pass my test and they are a "real" publisher and of legitimate interest to English-speakers with an interest in Korea. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, real publisher, real books, valid claim to being a significant publisher of English-language books about Korea. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Genuine (although small) publisher with a focus on Korea. Subject matter is esoteric by nature and thus they have only a small presence in the West Pilatus 10:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Dpsmith's Amazon test, although I am incredibly opposed to the idea that something should have to prove itself "of interest to English-speakers" in order to be included. Kappa 13:35, 2 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roadmap to Korean

[edit]

Google gives 7 results. User spams himself, his books, and his publisher. See also: Faces of Korea, Hollym & Richard Harris (writer)Renata3 09:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have not added this nomination to the VfD log for July 23. Please do so. -- Visviva 16:19, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faces of Korea

[edit]

Google gives about 60 unique results (Harris "Faces of Korea"). Not significant. User just spams himself, his books, and his publisher. See also: Roadmap to Korean, Hollym & Richard Harris (writer) Renata3 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What's the proper procedure to follow when you see a VFD entry, like this one, with no title? (This is not sarcasm; I actually want to know.) I can tell that this is for Faces of Korea but it needs to be fixed. --Metropolitan90 15:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
It is now on a subpage, but doesn't seem to be linked from the main page. I'm confused. Trying to fix it with this edit. -- Visviva 16:27, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Harris (writer)

[edit]

See also: Faces of Korea, Hollym & Roadmap to Korean

User just spams himself, his books, and his publisher.

  • Tentative keep--article names published books and a radio show. Of course that could be inflated in a way. Everyking 07:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Arguably notable -- certainly significant in the SK expat community, though not outside of it -- but I don't see any point in encouraging this sort of article. -- Visviva 16:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity, advert. We don't, and won't, have articles on most published writers. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Using my personal criterion: Amazon sales rank number < 200,000 = sufficiently notable. This book, ISBN 1565912144, has an Amazon.com Sales Rank: #568,826 in Books. For comparison: Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (Revised and Updated Edition), ISBN 65051626, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #56,024 in Books. For a sense of what a rank of 568,826 probably means: I personally know of a book that has sold less than fifty copies which has a sales rank in the 700,000s. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I live in Seoul and I know how his books are dealt with in Korean bookstores and how actively he is working with publishers and broadcasting stations here. As a reader of his, I am sure he has great potential as a writer, not only in Korea in the future.
Above posted by User:Hyoun-Kyoung Kim. This is the user's first edit. -- Visviva 10:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- I've worked through Roadmap.., which is due out 7/2005 in its second edition. I've done foreign language courses in a half dozen languages and what his book does for Korean is something I wish for in all other languages: sociolinguistic detail, learner "in hindsight" commentary, overall schema for approaching various parts of the language/society. About the basis for Wiki presence/absence, I can't say, but weighed in terms of significance of Roadmap to Korean for English-language native speakers taking up the Category IV language like Korean, this book is valuable.

G.P.Witteveen 19:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above posted by User:216.157.203.65, who has no other edits. User:G.P.Witteveen does not exist. --Visviva 01:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -Roadmap to Korean is the most complete and thorough introduction to the Korean language of its kind. It provides a unique look into the 70 million people who speak the language around the world today. I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We celebrate the cultural diversity of our country. I am constantly asked by colleagues why bookstores like Indigo do not carry more books, authored by Canadians, living abroad. In the past month alone I know that this book has been requested by a British author, 4 Canadian authors from Japan (living in Canada), the University of Toronto, George Brown College, York University and McGill University.

The "Faces of Korea" is especially enthralling now, as propoganda mounts around North Korea, and one is curious about why people would choose to live in Korea. User:E. McHugh, July 25,2005

Above posted by User:69.195.67.61, who has no other edits.-- 01:39, 26 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 06:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dog poop girl

[edit]

Ym!Eat your own poop. Weird - certainly NN - do we really need articles about defecating dogs and their owners? A curate's egg 15:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still, comparing this to Star Wars Kid isn't exactly meaningful. The Kid was not only covered by media and blogs but was also the subject of a lawsuit, several petitions and fansites. His notability is far much clearer even if you just check the links in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 19:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Above vote by 220.94.242.123.
  • Keep. Significantly publisized event, even if it is non-notable. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nasty Koreans don't have a right to be noted!!! Ignorance of them is the best option!! DELETE (helpful comment posted by 211.242.22.230)
  • Delete, and firmly establish the precedent that being "extensively covered by press and bloggers and fine Google presence" does not suffice to make a subject encyclopedic. Star Wars kid should probably go the same way. - Mustafaa 21:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE NN, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOT (I'll take my dog to poop on the train and I'll be in Wikipedia too?)--AI 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you actually go do that and then subsequently receive large amounts of attention in your country, are covered in the local and international press, then I don't see why not. --Rankler 04:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The importance of being John Daker. Ink 12:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do we really need/want an article on everything that ever showed up in the news or in the net? Is WP a jokes site? Or a blog? I sure hope not - Nabla 03:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newsworthy because it illustrates the power of the internet mob when conflated with the ubiquity of cell phone cameras creating citizen photo journalists. Nonetheless, the picture clearly showing the subject's face should be removed because it puts Wiki in a position of harrassing the subject (vs reporting/documenting the event) and is unnecessary in conveying the story's message. The current picture also looks Photoshopped (unusually long middle digit). --Vineet KewalRamani 06:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As someone said once, these are the kinds of entries that make wikipedia so much more than an encarta clone. Interesting, if not always tasteful, articles about EVERYTHING notable... not just one person's concept of "appropriate". Themindset 06:14, 19 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.. - Mgm|(talk) 23:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful land

[edit]

Created by User:Kojangee to illustrate a point. Foreign language dicdef at best; I do not see any potential for this to become encyclopedic. Therefore, delete. Visviva 02:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be too POV to merely redirect this to the United States? Hehe. —Cleared as filed. 04:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as currently unverifiable, although I would probably change my vote if given cites, it would be an interesting thing to note if true. Dcarrano 05:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-referential dic def. Also, hopes to be policy about use of the word which goes against current naming conventions. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete To explain, Beautiful Land is a transliteration of miguk(미국;美國) which is in turn taken from mirigyeon(미리견;美利堅), old Chinese transliteration of America. The character mi(미) means beautiful, but the meaning was not a factor in constructing the name of the country. Btw, Japanese use "米国" which also reads miguk in Korean, but means "Rice Land." noirum 09:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per MoS (use English). Kokiri 11:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I was fishing and indeed caught my fish as Kokiri has given me enough evidence to demonstrate my point on another issue. For those interested, Beautiful Land is indeed a translation of what Koreans and Chinese use for America. However, most modern Japanese use "Ah-Meh-Lee-Kah" and not Rice Land, an antiquidated term in Japanese. The point I was trying to make was that Koreans use the term "East Sea" (Donghae) for the "Sea of Japan" in Korean, yet some people are too stubborn and want to use the Korean word but put into English. My point is that if they want to use the Korean name and put it into English, why would the reverse not be called for? Anyway, my point has been made. Kojangee July 15th, 2005 19:33 Beijing Time
Because the English name of the United States is not a matter of international dispute, perhaps...? Oh, wait, it must be because we're idiotic dupes of the great international Korean conspiracy to denature the English language. -- Visviva 14:28, 15 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Youn Hae In

[edit]

Vanity. Delete. Visviva 30 June 2005 04:50 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Mr Tan 30 June 2005 06:14 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sunday school teachers. I'm glad they work there, and I'm sure they're loved by their church, but they are not notable in the world at large and needing (not "deserving") an article. Geogre 30 June 2005 17:27 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

Gung Ye

[edit]

Incorrect information, 'Gung Ho' is from the Chinese for "to work together". Dictionary.com proves this. This user has tampered with other pages including writing a full "biography" in my user page. Speedy deletion? Kinger414 06:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The mention of "Gung Ho" makes me tend to believe user:Kinger 414 when he alleges that this is tampering. Unless verified delete. Or revert, if appropriate. --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Taebong, which contains quite a bit of information on the real Gung Ye. -- Visviva 16:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redir Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete - If someone wants to write a good, NPOV article on the subject, this start won't help them. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Bai-dal

[edit]

Non verifiable, dubious content, possibly original research Proto 09:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah, delete Proto 09:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone's fantasy world. Here's the funny part: it gets about 800 google hits, most of which are not in English, but those that are appear to be posts in forums and so forth. Hundreds of them. So, what I think we have here is a nice Korean kid with a bit of a complex over growing up next to big ol' China, who thinks up an ancient Korean civilization that ruled most of China for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. -- BD2412 talk 09:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    • Comment - I am having second thoughts on this, as further research from some of my fellow Wikipedians suggests that this myth has some legs in Korea - however, it remains highly inappropriate for it to be presented as fact-history. -- BD2412 talk 19:47, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  • Delete As per above, and by reading the article's first sentence. — Kjammer ⌂ 10:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs a {{disputed}} tag or something, not deletion. Kappa 13:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDA. Radiant_>|< 14:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: you appear to have taken all of two minutes to research that vote. Kappa 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • (Adapted from your comment in a previous VfD:) Please review WP:NPA. Barno 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • How do you know how much time Radiant took to research his vote? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • The timings of his contributions seem to indicate that. Kappa 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • And how exactly is that relevant? Radiant_>|< 15:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
            • Would it be true to say your vote is essentially an expression of confidence in BDA's research skills? Kappa 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Hey now, Kappa, I'm not particularly quick on the draw to delete articles - I put fair labor into researching this, and found nothing but similarly-worded collections of impossible claims. To wit: "The first Korean nation, Han-gook (also pronounced whan-gook), was established in 7,197 BC and lasted 3,301 years". Google shows 239 English language pages for "Bai dal" -Wikipedia, (many of which are still not actually in English) and I tried quite a few of them. There are about 40 actual pages, and a lot of smoke and mirrors. -- BD2412 talk 17:42, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
                • BD2412 I know you researched this topic, and I thank you for doing so. However I find your hypothesis that "some kid" made the whole thing up to be rather implausible, and certainly not proven, which is why I vote for it to be kept with a "disputed" tag until someone with more specialized knowledge or skills can check into it. Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                  • Then I must revise my analysis to say that some person made the whole thing up. -- BD2412 talk 22:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
        • If you mean that he posted something else 2 minutes before his vote, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done research previously. In any case, there's certainly no minimum research time required before one votes, and calling it out like this veers uncomfortably close to a personal attack. I think an apology to Radiant is in order. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • OK I apologize to Radiant, it was badly worded and I was irritated when I said it. However I'm pretty sure that BD2412 is the only 'delete' voter who has done any significant amount of research, I'm happy to be corrected on this. Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article is a mixture of facts to create a synthetic that's unverified and hoax-ish. "There were people in America 30,000 years ago." "Canada was settled 300 years ago." "The ancient American civilization was ruined by Canadians." That kind of thing. Not wicked, but not true, and not encyclopedic. Geogre 15:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The proper treatment for unverified statements is to attempt to verify them, not to dismiss them as "hoax-ish". Kappa 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Kappa, I'm glad you're concerned with the "proper" thing to do. What would be the correct thing for an author to do? Would it be A) Write whatever you want with the expectation that Kappa will vote "keep" for it? B) Present verifiable and verified information, along with references? This article fails its duty as an article. It violates the deletion policy. The "proper treatment" of things that violate the deletion policy is to vote "delete," not castigate other voters for not agreeing with you. Geogre 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Which of those statements can you verify? Which statements about an ancient Korean civilization ruling China can you verify? Does Geogre's contribution history prove that he didn't try to verify them? Delete, unverifiable. Barno 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately I can't verify any statements about an ancient Korean civilization ruling China. But conveniently, there aren't any such statements in the article. I note that he made the more conservative statement "unverified" rather than the very confident-sounding "unverifiable". Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified claims, no sources given. The article was marked as needing verification on May 30, and it still has no sources three and a half weeks later. I simply don't understand keep voters who insist that a delete voter falsify all the claims in a dubious article. The burden is on the other party. WP articles must be verifiable—this is absolutely non-negotiable. If you want to keep this article, prove that it isn't nonsense. Quale 19:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence given for claims. --Carnildo 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with clean-up. I believe this is actually a fairly well-known "legend" held by many Koreans and should have an article to discuss it but it would need to be in a factually-based way on the unverifiable legend. It should be noted that this verbatim content appears to have been removed from the Korea and History of Korea pages in the past. See: Talk:Korea#Weird, Talk:Korea#Yello.21, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Korea&diff=next&oldid=7007070 , The Origin of the Korean People: Who are the Koreans?. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I think the source of this legend or hoax or whatever is the apocryphal Hwandan Gogi written in 1911. It's mentioned in Dangun and Chi You. Kappa 01:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable claims. JamesBurns 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the Baedal (배달) legend has no business being taken as historical fact, it has assumed an important role certain aspects of modern Korean nationalism. In particular, the Christian thinker Ham Seok-heon placed quite a lot of store in it. I'll put some more content in the article when I have time. ... Besides, we need something to point to the next time someone dumps a Baidal section into History of Korea. -- Visviva 05:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as an article on the legend. Needs complete rewrite, suggest move to Baidal or Baedal. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
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 of the debate was no consensus. There are six votes to delete, two of which were cast before the article was significantly modified, but which give no alternate instructions (e.g. they do not say delete unless...); there are three votes to keep, plus Uncle G's fairly lengthy discussion noting the modification, which, in combination with his labor in expansion of the article, projects a desire that the article be kept. Counting that as a vote to keep makes it 6-4, ergo, no consensus for deletion. -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Bang (Korean)

[edit]

I think the decision to Transwiki this to Wiktionary was a good one. Bang, by itself, is no more encyclopedia-worthy than any other syllable in the Korean language. Therefore, delete. Visviva 03:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Dictdef. `It's all about the wiktionary, baby. -- Jonel | Speak 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable type of space used for recreation with no real equivalent in English. Kappa 05:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. How can someone want to keep it after transwiki? I don't see a discussion here or a cross-cultural pollination that needs explanation. Geogre 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Once one realizes that, and sees that Wiktionary already has 房, one can get away from fixating upon translating a Korean word (including losing that ghastly {{koreanname noimage}} template, whose task Wiktionary does a far superior job of performing here) and can uncover a potential encyclopaedia article that was hidden beneath the Lost Lexicography. Modified article. See what you think now. Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
    • I still think it's mostly a dictdef/usage guide, but I'm going to change my vote to Abstain because it's borderline. -- Jonel | Speak 18:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry you don't like the Koreanname templates, Uncle G. If you would like to propose an alternative, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean). -- Visviva 07:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Uncle G. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just an essay about the evolution of a word. That makes it a dicdef padded out with linguistic speculation. I'd change my vote if somebody added material indicating this was an interesting Korean cultural phenomenon. ----Isaac R 02:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Although UncleG has done an admirable job of filling this article out, I still don't think it merits inclusion (and I say this as an avowed inclusionist). "Bang" really does just mean "room" or "rooms"... the only thing that is distinctive about it are its collocational properties. The different kinds of bang -- sarangbang, noraebang, PC-bang, DVD-bang &c. -- are distinctive cultural phenomena that do merit their own encyclopedia articles. Each such article might reasonably mention the composition of the word from bang. But bang itself is no more distinctive than any other random Korean affix. -- Visviva 05:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur with above. --Scimitar 19:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:03 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Korea/Closed&oldid=896010456"