- 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. Withdrawn by nominator, with no current !votes to delete, (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Gender inequality in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This ridiculous stub, as I called it in the contested WP:PROD, totally fails to cover the topic in an adequate way, only mentioning an isolated event that – while possibly symptomatic for sexism in South Korea – isn't even put into context. Yes, initially the article was a bit longer, but no, it wasn't better. While I'm sure there is enough material to write a proper article on this topic, this would better be done from scratch. PanchoS (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Women in South Korea: In it's current form it does not have anything that can be useful. The topic itself is clearly notable, but unless there is a proper editorial article, I don't see any reason to keep the stub. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the edit history, a lot of unrelated content has been removed over the years. But the stub article as it exists now is basically just "a rephrasing of the title," and as such, could have even been speedy deleted WP:A3. Delete; there is no actual content on the topic here, it is a mere placeholder. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike through !vote. No longer an empty placeholder. Article has been populated. Caeciliusinhorto (below) "AFD is not cleanup" does not pertain in cases where there's no content there whatsoever, as was the case when it was nominated. If you consider the edit history of this article, the nominator's deletion was perfectly valid, at the time. Credit to Piotrus for creating an article, basically from scratch. As for the content that had been removed, all of it seemed to be off-topic, to me. Anyway, keep, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The topic is notable. The stub is ridiculous, but part of that is the fault of people who gutted the article in the past, through looking at the past revisions, well, it was mostly essay-ish/unreferenced stuff, and what refs there were, were pretty bad. Since this was somewhere on my to do list, I'll at least make a proper stub out if it over the next few minutes so we can speedy close this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No deadline, AfD is not cleanup etc. Obviously notable and verifiable. I don't see that anyone has given any valid deletion rationale. At any rate, Piotrus has done a commendable job of stepping up and giving the article some usable content. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PanchoS: Please indicate if you now wish to withdraw this, given the addition of valid content under this article name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2016 (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.