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 as the nominator explicitly is ~~not requesting deletion~~ requesting the article be fixed/rewritten, and no !votes have advocated a delete position. AfD is not the forum for this discussion; having said that, I have opened an RfC at Talk:Chojoongdong#RfC:POV discussion (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chojoongdong[edit]

The word "Chojoongdong" itself is a degrading term against the three media corporations and therefore is a political POV minefield. Not to mention the article has so many gramatical and informational errors that some one would need to write the entire article over again rather than waste their time trying to fix it. Whoever first posted this article is clearly far from neutral and I'm sure no one'll disagree with me on that. Abrakazam689 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An IP user vandalized the AfD template on the article, which resulted in users wanting to comment on the AfD being directed to a dummy AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/hani). I NAC'd the other discussion, and the good-faith comments placed there have been copied and pasted below. I am neutral. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which I wrote, has been vandalised. The headings have been changed to nonsense terms so that it is now largely meaningless. Rather than resorting to sabotage, these unregistered users should discuss here any issues they have with the article and justify its deletion. Please indicate exactly which facts you consider to be false. You must also specify what needs to be added.
Maybe through dialogue we can make the article more accurate. If this article ended up being deleted without this kind of information being offered, it would be unfair because no effort has been made to have a proper dialogue.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawhiti25 (talk • contribs) 2009/04/30 11:02:00
Keep. The article is apparently about a Korean initialism for three major newspapers and their influence. Lacking context to make much sense out of this, or knowledge of South Korean politics, it is a rather confusing article as it stands. The current version seems strongly slanted in a hostile direction. But absolutely no grounds for deleting the article are given here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End copied comments. KuyaBriBri^Talk

I have also re-listed the correct AfD discussion in the April 30 AfD log. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I apologize for any mistakes that I've made attempting to fix the article. Though I have read the instructions over and over, the HTML stuff is still very confusing to me. Having said that, I don't want anyone to have the idea that I want this article to be deleted completely. Though I think the article is very much a political minefield which will call for more discussions such as this as long as this article is existant, what I would like for the article is to be deleted, and perhaps rewritten. This is because the quality of the article is clearly very poor and as it is being discussed in the talk page, very biased. Though I've made attempts to make contributions toward the page through rewriting large portions of the page, this only caused me to have wikipedia make a as a vandalism user.Abrakazam689 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ihcoyc, it probably helps to know that English-language sources call these newspapers the "Big Three". There is an interesting source, by Seung-Mock Yang, here that will provide some context to this.
Abrakazam689, if you don't want an article deleted, don't bring it to AFD. AFD is, as the name says, for deletion. If you want an article rewritten, rewrite it yourself. Rewriting does not involve use of the deletion tool, and is not the sole remit of administrators. Every editor, with or without an account, has the tool for performing a rewrite. And as an editor with an account you also have the tool for, say, renaming the article to Big Three (Korean press). Neither AFD nor deletion is involved in those tasks, and the correct tag is ((cleanup-rewrite)). AFD is not cleanup; and editing and renaming are tools that you yourself have. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2009 (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.