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, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VANK[edit]

VANK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page cites no external sources, is written with an obvious and clear bias that is difficult to correct, and is additionally written in poor English. Per WP:N, non-commercial organizations need at least one and preferably multiple unrelated sources. This article appears to have none. Avruch 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to withdraw nom if delete voters agree, per CaliforniaAliBabaAvruch 00:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find a source for this that isn't the organization itself; therefore, doesn't meet WP:Verifiable. As per the nomination, there is an obvious and clear bias -- verging on infringement of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Accounting4Taste 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have restarted the article based on easily-found sources (try a google news archive search) and removed the unsourced soapboxing. There does exist sourced criticism of this group, which I have added into the article. More sources [1][2] cab 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nice save CalAliBaba. Bad sourcing and POV are reasons for editing, not deleting an article. Rampantly deleting articles that are poorly written by hapless foreign types only contributes to the institutional bias of wikipedia. Bacchiad 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, dumpster diving at AfD is one of my favourite activities around here. But unfortunately, I don't really think this article contributes much to fighting Wikipedia's systemic bias. Our Asia-related articles tend to consist largely of stuff that's important to foreign Anglophones in Asia or immigrants' children who grew up in Anglophone countries, not of stuff which has actual local historical or political importance. Hence we get articles about idiot groups like this, and in the mean time, we have almost no coverage of the members of the National Assembly of Korea (compare Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives). cab 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable on the basis of quoted refs.--Bedivere 21:26, 8 October 2007 (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.