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 No consensus to delete. The ultimate title of the article can be discussed at the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privilege of the predecessors

[edit]

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

Absolutely zero sources can be found for a concept which goes by this name. The reason for this might be that the translation of the article title is not correct. SnottyWong talk 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author's explanation It is too natural that you suspect the trueness of the contents of this article. What on earth, in this world, a judge could make a decision of a trial on a basis that the laywer is a former judge or a prosecutor of his? Who can believe this? However it is true. You can find a related article by typing '前官禮遇' in www.google.com. You can learn a few Chinese characters in www.google.com, by typing '前', '官', '禮', '遇'. '前' means former, before, front, precedent like http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%89%8D; '官' means officer, staff as in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%AE%98 ; '禮' means respect, manner, courteous, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%A6%AE ; 遇 means 'treatment, encounter', as in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%81%87 ; These four characters altogether means transliterally 'treatment former officers as if they still are at their officiers.' A blog said '판사나 검사로 재직했던 사람이 변호사로 개업하면서 맡은 사건에 대해서 법원과 검찰에서 유리하게 판결하는 법조계의 관행적 특혜.' I tranlate; 'If a judge or a prosecuter opens a lawywer's service, it is customary that judges of the court and prosecutors would give more more favor on him.; Traditional practices' All of you can get this explanation by typing 전관예우 at www.naver.com, www.daum.net, www.nate.com, the three most distinguished internet total sites in South Korea. These three internet sites have their article daum, naver, nate in wikipedia. (Gauge00 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's great, but where are the sources? Delete. Four Google hits: two Wikipedia, one mirror, and one at Answers.com. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a more appropriate title, one that is already in use by reliable sources in English. It looks like, if this is covered by English sources, it would be under a different term, because the title here conveys an idea that's completely different that the concept exposed. Alternatively, if no reliably used English term can be found, then delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. WP:TITLE says: "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." This isn't a suitable translation, so unless a better one can be found, the title should be transliterated instead of translated. Polarpanda (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if you could (1) prove that the concept actually exists, and (2) prove that it is notable and passes WP:GNG. SnottyWong talk 15:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gauge00 has already done that. Polarpanda (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. SnottyWong talk 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Surely there is some documentation in English of the South Korean legal system? The concept explained in this article is too remote from the WP:Reliable sources that most of us can read. In his explanation above, Gauge00 sounds like he is citing a blog written in the Korean language. Blogs are usually not considered to be reliable sources even when they are written in English. If there were a well-referenced article about this topic on the Korean Wikipedia, that could make a difference. The web sites Daum, Naver and Nate do not sound like what we consider to be reliable sources. A legal handbook published in South Korea could be a better source. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move or Userfy. There seems to be some sourcing by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, but I am unsure of the applicability of these to the definition given in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 3 June 2010 (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.