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 change scope and move‎ to Migrant nail salon workers in the United States. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nail salon workers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS

I do believe that this article is far too specific and falls under "What Wikipedia is not." I believe that merging the article is a good choice of action, but I am unsure what exact article it can be put into. Reading the article itself, it seems more of a comment on general discrimination that Korean nail salon workers have committed rather than an article on Korean nail salon workers, neither of which I believe deserves an article (can be divided into Racism in Korea, Asian Americans/Korean Americans respectively). However, seeing that the article is unable to fit into any of the articles mentioned due to it's highly specific and niche "newspaper"-like topics, deletion is not an unreasonable course of action.

comment added by Edward hahm (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Strange combination of OR and combining several articles to suit a story idea. Nail salons are a thing, not sure why Korean workers there are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is primarily what I wished to discuss. I could see sections of the article being moved to Korean immigrants, nail salons, and Asian Americans, but at the end of the day, I fully agree with this. That's what I mostly mean to say. Edward hahm (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So you think the choice topic is a result of synthesis? Please look at the number of sources at the bottom of the article that have the exact same focus. small jars tc 16:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Korea, South Korea, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suppose the NOTNEWS criticism rests on the question of the endurance of the situation described. Apart from that, the title is missing an "in the US" qualifier. It feels a bit WP:UNDUE as it's only part of the situation of Immigrant workers in the United States, but since we don't have an article on that topic, I can't propose a merge; maybe it could be draftified and parts of it used as a basis for one? small jars tc 09:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NOTNP, and WP:UNDUE. CastJared (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The NOTNP/NOTNEWS argument needs to be defended here: do you just think that the style is too newspaperish or are you saying that the topic itself is unencyclopedic? Note that the earliest source referenced in the article that directly adresses the topic is from 2007, and the latest is from 2019, meaning the coverage spans more than a decade. small jars tc 11:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, this article, like Balesh Dhankhar, is not a newspaper. CastJared (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't answer any of my questions? small jars tc 11:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right that this article is not a newspaper, because there doesn't seem to be anything that is news-like in the first place. However, this article has other problems, such as WP:SCOPE issues (e.g. There are ingredients in nail products that are known to cause cancer and have been linked to reproductive issues. Dibutyl phthalate, toluene, and formaldehyde, alternately known as the "toxic trio," are three of the most common chemicals used in nail products is hardly exclusive to Korean nail salon workers). We also have unsourced, essay-like expositions like Customers can feel that they are being slighted and excluded by workers when they do not speak English, or that it is improper to speak Korean when they are around Americans. Clients also tend to feel suspicious that they are being talked about or made fun of by workers. Customers often think of workers speaking Korean over English as a choice and a show of obstinance instead of something necessary for them to easily communicate. I mean, there might be an encyclopedic topic here, but one would have to sift through the chaff in order to determine what is and isn't encyclopedic. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The decider between (a) expanding the stated scope of the article (imo to just "migrants") and (b) shrinking the scope of the content to just Koreans should be the relative weight placed on Koreans by RSes on US nail salon workers, which will take further Googling to determine. small jars tc 23:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Finding further sources providing WP:SUSTAINED coverage from as early as 2003 [1] has made the idea that NOTNEWS applies to the topic seem very silly to me. If people think there's a NOTNEWS problem in terms of style, the best response is cleanup, not deletion. I also found several similar sources on other, mostly Asian, migrant groups in the same business, [2][3] showing that our current coverage of these issues is heavely unbalanced and biased towards to particular case of Koreans. (The article does mention this: there are also Latina and Chinese immigrants employed by these shops) However, the way we fix balance on a WP:NOTDONE encyclopedia is by writing up the missing pieces, not deleting the little coverage we have on a notable topic. small jars tc 10:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A specific course of action I recommend is to move the article to "Migrant nail salon workers in the United States," rework the lede around this title, and leave a ((globalize)) template (not exactly what it's meant for but close enough) so that someone who has the energy can eventually improve the scope the article, and readers can understand it's limitations in the meantime. small jars tc 11:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Facepalm And now I realise the 2003 was on the page all along and I just missed it. small jars tc 12:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but trim the size of the article significantly. The fact that an article is very specific is not a valid criterion for deletion, as many of our featured articles tend to be quite detailed. Further, I don't see WP:NOTNEWS violations in the article; being a newspaper and talking about a news development are two very different things. There is WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this topic, even though it seems to be super-precise. Some of the sources, e.g. this and this, do talk about Korean nail salon workers at length. However, the scope of this article really needs to be whittled down to Korean nail salon workers in the US. Several sections ("Income and wage theft" and "Health risks" in particular) are not unique to Korean nail salon workers and can probably be removed. Other parts of the article (e.g. the paragraph Language is also a source of tension ... necessary for them to easily communicate.) are original research and really need to be removed as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "Migrant nail salon workers in the United States" per small jars. I disagree that the article "seems more of a comment on general discrimination that Korean nail salon workers have committed rather than an article on Korean nail salon workers". The first three sections discuss Korean nail salon workers themselves, including how they enter the industry and how workers are organize / what their practices are. Even if it were the case that the article is more about discrimination against Korean nail salon workers, that topic itself meets WP:GNG since the references cite multiple studies about that issue going back to 1997. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good point. Expanding the article to include migrant nail salon workers could work pretty well. To that extent though, couldn't we expand this to Migrant Workers in the United States in general? I feel that would be more appropriate than specifying nail salon workers. The article currently does not exist, but I believe that it's a topic worthy of an article, especially given how much migrant workers in the United States general are such a major topic. Edward hahm (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the larger topic probably warrants an article, but I think small jars' proposal is a good interim solution since this article has already been written. Then, if the "Migrant workers in the United States" article is ever written, they could be merged. I would recommend starting a discussion on the WikiProject United States talk page to see if there's any interest. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I think that works! Edward hahm (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I do want to add one more comment however. Wouldn't this fall under WP:UNDUE as per someone else has previously mentioned? Edward hahm (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Part of the reason I made the proposal to expand the scope was that the alternative seemed to give undue weight to Korean workers. small jars tc 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point Edward hahm (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:35, 7 May 2023 (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.