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. John254 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article severely violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Many of its text has been copied directly from a similar article (Korean pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), which has been redirected to another page since January 2006 due to the same issue. Therefore, I am also nominating Korean pride for deletion as well. eDenE 00:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rewrite, or at least tag to hell. I believe that there is such thing as Korean nationalism and that it is notable, though this article has problems. If evidence actually indicates that the Koreans are an exceptionally non-nationalistic people, I would agree with deleting the article, but deleting it because it has POV issues is absurd. Atropos 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also believe that the topic itself is notable and important. However, this article is going nowhere and no one is willing to take care of this. Also I'm afraid of touching its contents, because it will likely cause a revert war. eDenE 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response If there is nothing wrong with the subject itself, and the content shows grounds for improvement, with a clear potential to become a well-rounded encyclopedic article then it does not meet the criteria for deletion. Also, take note that Korean pride redirects to Asian pride, and has been a redirect since October 2006. Neither Korean pride nor Asian pride have been tagged for deletion, so if you're nominating either of them for deletion you'd need to tag/list it for it to be included in the discussion/nomination. Calgary 02:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the concerns about the text of the article are valid enough, there are plenty of sources for an article on it: [1]. Or try some books [2]. The concept exists. Covering it properly? Difficult, I agree, but that's true of a lot of things on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if the edit history w/ Korean pride can be sorted. Nationalism exists in many places and it's not surprising that it exists in Korea, and sourcing should be a cinch. Fix POV problems using dispute resolution. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Though it does look like it's in need of some work, which is difficult considering the subject is not something which most of us know much about. But the subject is certainly notable and deserving of an article. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, perhaps some more work and sourcing would help this article, but it's not all that bad, actually, in my opinion. Useight 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We tend to run into this situation a lot with older articles, where's it's clearly crap but any incremental change just makes it worse because it's sorta reached a local maxima of quality. Best course of action in these cases is to get a few good books (i.e. not Sports Illustrated and a bunch of newspapers) and rewrite the article completely in your userspace based on a few good sources. Then propose that the mainspace version be replaced by the version in your userspace; this should be a landslide if the version you produce is any good. cab 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is well-referenced and notable. A lot of Koreans are nationalistic.----^DarkTea© 11:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Basic encyclopedic topic. Any problems with the article should be dealt with by improving it, not throwing in the towel and deleting it. Mowsbury 13:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant keep without even needing to look at the article. "Nationalism" has uses as a POV epithet; so does "Zionism"; shall we delete Zionism? Eleland 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously although I agree a full rewrite is needed to add more sources and remove the POV content - this is a significant issue in Korea.--JForget 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 09:01, 23 August 2007 (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.