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. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Role of Women During the North Korean Revolution (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)

The article may merit inclusion here, but it is written like an essay or term paper, there are no references, and the Bibliography is only accessible to individuals who actually have access to the books. Ormr2014 | Talk  19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Despite there not being footnotes (WP:INCITE), there are sources. Hence it's not an unreferenced article. Formatting those into footnotes is a cleanup and not a deletion issue (WP:NOTCLEANUP). Books as offline sources are verifiable and don't have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop While citing books is acceptable in Wikipedia per se, they must be "available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections" if unavailable online, and when questioned, an ISBN or OCLC number should be provided (See: Indicating Availability). Furthermore, there is absolutely no indication which part of the article any of the references are even attempting to support. Ormr2014 | Talk 

• Keep -- This is not a good article, and the syntax used for the referneces is incorrect. My worry about it is that the sources are all from one book and one dissertation. Rather than deleting it, can we ask the original author to correct the syntax of the notes? POssibly even userify? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added full bibliographical details. These are very good sources; Charles K. Armstrong's book is one of the most widely used sources and Suzy Kim's dissertation has been since published and well received. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also formatted the citations into footnotes (original citations commented out). I have added a list of possible references under Further reading (I have access to each of the articles in full, and books in part). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like OR. This is telling the story, not reporting on the story told. Most statements of fact are not referenced. I don't know if this could be made into an encyclopedia article, but it is not one today. If it is kept, it needs to be researched and re-written. LaMona (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic seems notable and the referencing issues require clean up. Not bad enough for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is articles for deletion, not articles for improvement, and the sources added by Finnusertop in Further reading show without a doubt that the topic has attracted scholarly study from reliable sources, and is thus a notable topic per WP:GNG. As discussed in WP:BEFORE, improvement should be sought before deletion-request (notifying the relevant WikiProject(s) would be one way). Most Wikipedia articles need improvement, and this is one of them, and it has already improved appreciably since being nominated. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article indeed needs some copy-editing and rewriting. Deletion is not a very good solution for cleanup issues. Furthermore, the article's topic is one of those which has relatively few articles existing in Wikipedia, so the scope itself is not an issue. Related articles that do exist include Women in the French Revolution, Women in the Russian Revolution, Role of women in Nicaraguan Revolution, Women in the Israel Defense Forces and Women in the American Revolution. There is a notable lack of articles about revolutions and women. I think there is nothing written about women in Eritrean War of Independence, or even about women in the Israeli Independence War, in any meaningful length on Wikipedia. This is a common and notable topic for feminist, sociologist and left-wing scholarship. Finding (good) sources even for the North Korea is not going to be too difficult. Ceosad (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve - first, fix the capitalization in the title. Secondly, right now it is based only on the same two sources. The "further reading" list indicates more sources are available. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:20, 20 May 2015 (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.