South Korean cultural claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Strictly speaking, the result was "no consensus" unlike the closing statement and I think the closing even counted the votes from SPA accounts's !vote. If such people are excluded, opinion for "delete" is more than the people who want to keep it. Besides, the closing admin weighted in his opinion that the WP:SYNTHESIS based on absurd rumors spread by Japanese/Chinese unreliable web forums and yellow media would greatly benefit the encyclopedia.. If the claims are established by majority of South Korean (As for myself, I've not heard of more than half of the rumors/alleagations), the article would have some merits, but I wonder the self-contradictory article would help the reputation of this online Encyclopeida. I think the article should be deleted for the addressed reasons at the discussion page. Caspian blue (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the debate ended in "keep", you think the result should be "no consensus". Am I reading this right? Keeper ǀ 76 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the admin closed the discussion as "keep" by his/her own judgment. I think it should be deleted, but somewhat expected that if the article was deletedkept by any closing admin, the rationale would be "no consensus". --Caspian blue (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out, but "no consensus" != "delete". If it closed as delete, there'd have to be consensus to do so. No comment on the AfD in question. lifebaka++ 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. well, that is not what I meant. There were canvassing/SPA accounts emerged, and editors there addressed toward "delete" more. I don't think "no consensus = "delete".--Caspian blue (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, with the fix above it makes sense. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I realize that I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I really don't know what the nominator/requester is asking for here. Is the request to overturn a keep with a no consensus (keep)? So we are being particular about what flavor of keep we want these days? This seems all too familiar to me. Why not just renominate it in 3 months? Or was some other request being made that I failed to grasp? If the latter, could the requester please elucidate?Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do people here try to see the only minor flaw of my statement instead of looking at the whole picture? --Caspian blue (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw the result as no consensus, which is of course a keep. (The only difference is that it can be renominated sooner) To delete there has to be consensus to delete. At the AfD, I said "keep and rewrite completely" That may have been unduly optimistic, for there seems to have been no agreement about how to rewrite it, or what the article should cover. I suppose the common-sense thing to try is for some uninvolved people to try & if the result isn't liked, renominate in a few months. I would support an agreement by which the previous editors abstained for a while while other tried. That's not a normal Deletion Review close, but admins do have the power to do a topic ban for the good of the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I, for one, have no problems if people come to DRV asking for "keep" closes to be changed to no consensus. It means they are coming here (presumably) focused on process and not outcome. To tell people in one DRV that they shouldn't come here just if they don't like the outcome then tell them in another that they should come here only if they want the outcome changed isn't the best approach. This doesn't look strictly like that, but that's my speech. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wrote the nomination statement in haste, so I clarified it.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum Rewriting/cleaning up seem impossible since some Japanese editor falsely accused me of being a liar on contrary to his repeated lying on my edits[1][2] and personal attacks.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if there is a bad editor, it does not mean it is impossible to make the article better. It sounds like you think that only you are right and that anyone who is against your edit is wrong.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That is my first attempt to clean up the article, and I only faced the user who said something weird and tried to stay the article awful. If users like him keep refusing to clean up the article and working together, well the article would be another good ground for re-nomination within few months if the RV does not go through per commentor's suggestion here.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is impossible to make this article NPOV. It is sourced/referenced with blogs/editorial and news about the blogs/youtube clips (2 min clips of 30 min shows). Some of the voter who voted to Keep stated that this article needs a new NPOV title and reliable sources. That can't be done in this article because the sources are all rumors. I'll wait to see how you guys change the title to comment more on the title, but I don't think a neutral article will be possible. Also someone has to fix the contradictions of the article. The entire point of the article is to state that Koreans are making these claims and taking it seriously, but the Korea news reports on the blogs are stating they don't take it seriously or that the blogs are from people of other nations. We need to stay consistent, do Koreans take this seriously or not. This article seems to be using blogs and editorial to maybe discredit future difference in evaluation of history with Korea and other nations. It doesn't seem possible to re-edit this the way some of the Keep voters wanted. --Objectiveye (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Seems like a waste of time to have a keep revised to a no consensus, no? Stifle (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well the article can't be re-written the way some of the Keep voters want, so what are we going to do about that? (should their votes be changed or not counted) Can someone please bring in a non-blog/editorial source. And please don't bring in news articles about blogs as a source. --Objectiveye (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

news articles discussing blogs if published in reliable major newspapers can be a perfectly good source if they give useful information.DGG (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What Objectiveye says is wrong. S/he talks as if all the sources are blogs and editorials which are not reliable. But most of the sources are from major newspapers and websites of major organizations, such as All Japan Kendo Federation. S/he just calls anything unfavourable to Korea POV. Even if the article is unfavourable to Korea, it is neutral as long as it is true and it is sourced. Objectiveye states that "the sources are all rumors," but it is not true. What is [3] (Samurai is of Korean origin)? And Samurang? And this (Judo is of Korean origin)? And this (Kabuki is of Korean origin)? And this (Kabuki is of Korean origin)? Korean major newspapers states they are of Korean origin. How can you call them "rumour"? What this page (South Korean cultural claims) states is true and it is sourced. The fact that the article is unfavourable to Korea cannot be the reason to delete it. I call deletion of the article a POV if you ask me.--Michael Friedrich (talk)
• Endorse and allow relisting at AfD to consider whether South Korean cultural claims is a POV Fork of another article, such as Korean nationalism. The close stated "the subject matter is clearly notable." However, merely because there is enough reliable source material to write an article on a topic is not the end of the AfD inquiry. Delete would not be a proper close. A difference between the effiect of a keep close and a no consensus close is the passage of a reasonable amount of time to the next AfD. A better close may have been no consensus, but meh. I endose the (default) keep and agree to allow the article to be immediately relisted at AfD to consider POV Fork and other article content policy issues not related to notability. -- Suntag ☼ 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Michael Friedrich, a couple of your sources are Japanese editorials and the Korean media is stating they don't take these seriously. We need to fix that contradiction. On one of the sources you pointed out, the very first sentence states Yudo as being Chinese origin (how does this prove your point). The Koreans are claiming that China had grappling martial arts and were teaching the Koreans, so the editorials and that reference is useless. Then I think one of the articles are referencing a fictional movie to make their point. Well, I'll wait to see how the contradictions and the POV title is changed. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossing of Ingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I missed the AfD for this article because I was on a wikibreak at the time. When I discovered the page had been deleted, I did a quick Google search for sources and turned a few up. However, it seems there were some copyvio concerns about the original article, and because of repeated recreation the article has now been salted. As I felt the sources established notability, I contacted Stifle to ask if he could either undelete the page so that I could add these sources, or, if it was a copyvio, unprotect it so that I could create a new non-copyvio version. He suggested that I create a user subpage draft and bring it here so that it could be considered for moving to mainspace. So here it is: User:KittyRainbow/The Crossing of Ingo. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything seriously wrong with it, but I'm not altogether convinced of the book's notability. Are there any sales figures? Stifle (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've yet found. But, as I'm sure we all know, notability != popularity. Sales figures are a nice fact to include in an article, but notability is still determined by the presence of multiple reliable sources... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation The concerns in the AFD relate to the lack of sources to establish notability. I think there is sufficient coverage here to establish notability and thus address the concerns of the AFD. Davewild (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also not convinced of the book's notability, but I'm pretty sure it's good enough for the previous AfD. Allow recreation, but please be prepared for the possibility of another AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging by previous AfDs I have participated in, the sources in this article would be enough to garner a consensus to keep. Simply having another AfD doesn't worry me, I'm prepared for that — but if what you really meant is "if taken to AfD this article would probably be deleted", well, then that is a concern. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation now if you really want, but I can not see how it can be notable quite yet--it has just been published, and, unlike the other Ingo books that are held by hundreds of libraries, almost no library yet holds it. Suggest you wait until there is something substantial rather than risk a second deletion. DGG (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used the WorldCat database to search for library inclusion of this series (I don't know of any other free ones) and there is indeed a marked difference in the number of libraries that hold this book compared to the others. However, it says this book is held in the same number of UK libraries as the previous ones; the difference is in the number of US libraries. And that makes sense, as it hasn't yet been published in the US (and therefore has no reviews from there, either). This book is as notable in the United Kingdom as the others in the series are, and notability in one country is notability everywhere... of course, if you don't feel that it has enough notability in the UK, that's a different matter. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure, by all means you can show notability from reviews--it's better than library holdings, though they tend to go together--if you cite the reviews in the article and they are more than mentions, and are 3rd party published reviews, not blurbs or blogs or booksellers' press releases--I did not see any listed in the deleted versions of the article. (Yes, World Cat does have that limitation you mention--in the UK it lists mostly major academic libraries, which would not be expected to hold the book. And there is to my knowledge also no equivalent to it for public libraries in the UK.). But consider seriously whether it would not be better to have a good article on the series, with sections on each book, redirects from each of the book titles. I really think that's a better way for all series but the most notable ones--it provides the same information & the article will almost certainly stand. DGG (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd seen the old article for quite a while before it got deleted, but there are five sources in the new one (six if you include the cite for the longlisting), which I would think would show notability. A series article is a possibility, but as at the moment Wikipedia is only covering 75% of the series, I'd rather we put this article in place and think about merging/redirecting afterwards... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. If there were copyvio concerns, email the deleted contents to User:KittyRainbow, and ask User:KittyRainbow to ensure that previous authors are acknowledged if theri material is used, as per the GFDL. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NimbleX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Admin ignored both consensus and evidence in deciding AfD outcome. Nonetheless AN/I discussion indicated that a review is required to have the article undeleted. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• edited 10:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Jerry, can you at least do us all the courtesy of explaining why in your close. Rather than "closed as Delete", could we not have a closed as Delete because...", as guided at the deletion process which notes that "a short explanation is also appreciated". It appears it was closed as delete because it was already deleted by User:Eluchil404, who simply cites the afd as a reason, which makes absolutely no sense at all. I have that bacwards. User:Eluchil404 deleted it after Jerry closed the debate. I must be missing something else since I can't see why Jerry didn't delete the article. There's probably an explanation, it is just a shame we have to hear it here. My apologies. Looking at [4] I'm borderline on this one, and I think it's borderline on policy too. But given the process wasn't handled at all well, I guess I'm going to come down on Relist. People want this deleted, go build the consensus or explain it better. Openness is not an option, it is a requirement. Hiding T 10:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. That was not an acceptable close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not opposed to a relist, but I'd also have voted delete since the sources are unreliable or not independent. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Admin-closure did not follow consensus, and has not provided justification for his actions. ffm 12:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The custom is to discount AFD !votes by new or unregistered users, but there were no other comments and hence no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment as closing admin. Note that I did delete this article, but the database was giving errors that day, and some things did not go right. I think the developers could explain it, as they seem to have fixed it. There were issues with some deletions occurring with no entry in the log, and some deletions reporting as complete to the user with no actual deletion. Of course I was unaware of the problem, as another admin took care of it. As for the closing, AfD is not a vote, and keeps based on "I like this", and "Wikipedia will suffer without this" sentiment are given absolutely no consideration when determining the outcome. It is just like those comments were not even left. Awkward arguments like this is notable because the website allows you to make an install disk seem to me to be asinine. Unless some independant coverage is shown that recognizes that feature as important enough to cover non-trivially, then it seems hardly noteworthy. And the sources provided were blogs, personal websites, developer websites, and fanatic websites which cover trivially all versions of Linus-variants and clones. When a debate nomination offers credible and valid criterion for deletion, and after a full 5-day listing period and another relist period, there are no contrary valid keep arguments, then it is acceptable to close as delete. There is no quorum requirement for deletion consensus. This was not closed early, it was closed late. There were no valid arguments for keep in the discussion. I stand by my closing. A relist is unlikely to create a different outcome that the first double list did. And I do not see the validity int he statement that I attacked this editor or was in any way uncivil, or that I in any way acted in bad faith or as a rouge admin. These accusations are baseless and unhelpful. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jerry, is there a reason you can't actually explain your closures per process? This is the fourth closure of yours I've seen without one, all of which would not necessarily cause confusion if you were to provide one. Is there a reason you can't provide one? What am I missing? Mind reading abilities? Hiding T 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never underestimate the many benefits of sarcasm and criticism. I look forward to long conversations with you where you can shower me with more. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist Imho the outcome should have been "no consensus" as neither keep nor delete votes are convincing. Hopefully relisting will, now that this has gone to AN/I and DRV, generate more discussion, allowing to reach a clear consensus. SoWhy 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make my comment above more clear: I have no problem with relisting this discussion, I just do not see the potential for this article to reach a keep outcome. I do not mind if my closing is reverted and this drv closed as resolved suchly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Shin Ae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

The reason for article deletion is unjustifiable. She is a popular Korean actress and model and thus, can be considered as notable based on basic and additional criterias. I've listed all reliable sources for her notable roles here. Please do take some contemplation and restore the article. Thanks. 87.192.101.246 (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment list of sources copied from talk page listed above: http: //wiki.d-addicts.com/Shin_Ae [5] [6] and in korean [7] [8] [9] [10]. Of the English sources one is a wiki and so not of much use, one is a passing mention and one is an interview so not really independant of the subject. I can't read the Korean ones, but one is the Korean wikipedia which can't be used as a source (and doesn't appear to have any external sources in the article). --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Sorry. Notability is a difficult concept. Notability has to be demonstrated, almost always by comment in reliable, independent sources. Please provide these sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article was deleted as WP:CSD#A7, an article on an individual that does not assert notability. The substantive content of the article was: "Shin Ae (Korean: 신애, born March 13, 1982) is a South Korean actress and model." There were some appearances listed, but most were redlinks and one of those which was not was a dab page, another did not name the actress. There is no IMDB profile for this actress, and the article contained no reliable independent sources. I would suggest that userfying for rework may be appropriate, but as an A7 deletion I endorse the decision. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid A7. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has been deleted shortly right after it's been created. It supposed to be more time needed for the editors to work on it. Most of reliable and independent sources are in Korean (eg) since she is a Korean entertainer. If you are searching for English sources, the possibility to find one is almost zero because you know, most Korean entertainment marketing does not reached worldwide market except few of them who actually entered the overseas market. In spite of that, Hancinema is the most reliable and the only best source for non-Korean speakers so far. -- 87.192.101.246 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not add her to the Korean Wikipedia? English Wikipedia is not the only Wikipedia in the world, and others have different inclusion criteria. Ours requires verifiability from non-trivial independent sources, but none were presented. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Shin Ae is already in the Korean Wikipedia [11].Daydreamer198 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo much of the above. That was pretty well not a good article and a valid A7 deletion (I might've erred on the side of caution myself, but whatever). I highly suggest rewriting the article so that it shows the subject's notability using nontrivial mentions in reliable, third-party sources. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The model is very famous in South Korea, but well since I can't see the deleted one, I don't know how the article presented her notability. The nominator can work on rewriting the article with the aforementioned sources any time.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit re-creation Looking at the article, it asserted roles in 6 TV series on major Korean channels, and two films. Whether it was a valid A7 depends on whether these roles are trivial, & the article gives no direct information on that, and links to two Korean websites one of which shows an English version [12] and appears to be an equivalent to IMdB (she is listed there simply as "Sin-ae", which may explain some difficulty in searching--and there seems to be at least one other Shin-ae in cinema.). That of course means exactly nothing by itself except to prove her real existence, and while there are English language excerpts from other sources there, none specifically indicates any particular notability that I can easily see & some clearly mention her in bit roles. Additionally, 2 of the films have WP articles--looking at them, she has a major role in the 2003 Summer Scent, but not the 2001 Four Sisters. Summer Scent, in turn, is part of Endless Love (TV series), which appears to have been very popular even beyond Korea. So if one does a little work, just within our own confines, there is at least an indication of possible notability. But though admins should check for sources before deleting, really it is expecting too much of us to expect if you think we will do all this routinely. Ideally it should have waited for an admin familiar with Korean cinema and able to read the sources, but again that's a little unrealistic at the English WP. The enWP does and should cover the world, and accepts reliable Korean sources, but it can only do so if the notability can be explained in English. So try again--The ideal source would be reviews of her in major roles, with the key parts quoted for us in English.DGG (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Looking at the Korean article about this actress, ko:신애 (배우), even someone who can't read Korean, like me, can tell that the article has only two sentences of prose and no sources. It's likely that most of this actress's fans know the Korean language and can read whatever Korean-language sources about her exist. Therefore, I would recommend that they concentrate first on improving the Korean Wikipedia article about her first. If, nevertheless, they still want to focus on writing the English Wikipedia article about her first, they should be allowed to do so, but with a warning that the article will be sent to Articles for deletion if they don't find independent reliable sources to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]