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 redirect to History of South Korea#Sixth Republic. This is without prejudice to the question of resplitting the target section back here based on our normal editorial processes. I have not deleted the history under the redirect here, . PWilkinson specifically argues that point, and I don't see content so problematic that it can't sit in the history. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Republic of South Korea

[edit]

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

The Sixth Republic of South Korea is the same as the Republic of Korea, so there is no need for a separate article on the Sixth Republic. BucaFan3 (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best idea here would be to just redirect it to the actual South Korea page. Badger2424 (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you look at it comparatively, we do have a separate article for French Fifth Republic apart from France... so conceivably, there can be a separate article here as well. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment in response to the last comment, I would like to point out that the article for the French Fifth Republic is a well written article, where as the Sixth Republic of South Korea article has next-to-no content, cites no sources, and is all together not well written. The name of the article isn't even the correct name (it should be the Sixth Republic of Korea, as South Korea's legal name is the Republic of Korea). Also, the main article on the Republic of Korea has information about the Sixth Republic in its current version (see Republic of Korea#Government). BucaFan3 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no value in the current article. The strength of the French 5th republic article is that it addresses the difference of government and is sourced. The current article is unsourced and for that reason alone it should not stay. The subject itself deserves study but there's no point retaining a poor article about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My thoughts:
(1) When I looked at Republic of Korea it was a redirect to South Korea, & has been since 8 December 2008. The latter is the general article on the country in all respects beyond simply the country's history & politics, whereas I believe Sixth Republic of South Korea would cover only a specific period of the history of its government. Would the nominator be thinking of another article?
(2) If this article is deleted, would a redirect be put in its place -- in other words, in this case would a merge have the same result as a delete? (I'm asking this to satisfy my own curiosity, not to make any point.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite or Redirect/Merge to History of South Korea#Sixth Republic, from which this article seems to have been split out about nine years ago. At least by the current terms of WP:SPLIT, that was then probably premature, but this would not be a problem except that almost all subsequent expansion and adding references have been done in the original article rather than here. The best solution would probably be to redo the split properly, replacing most of the text of this article with the relevant referenced text from the original article as it now stands and leaving a summary there. But, failing that, a redirect (perhaps leaving the history available, in case there is anything like infoboxes or the list of presidents that might be usable later) would certainly be OK. PWilkinson (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: Delete/Redirect As the creator of this discussion, I have been looking at each of the responses in this discussion. Seeing as how everyone has mixed feelings about the deletion of this article, everyone seems to have suggested a redirect as a compromise. I'm NOT going to retract my proposal about deletion, but I will suggest that a "Redirect Resolution" be put in place as a result of this discussion. BucaFan3 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2014 (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.