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]
|