Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Korea

WP:KO-DEL

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Korea. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Korea|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Korea. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Korea/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Korea-related topics notice board and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/South Korea

Scan for Korea-related AfDs

Korea

Apocalypse: From Us

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Redirect was reverted DonaldD23 talk to me 14:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Korea, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dreamcatcher (group): found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will be better redirect to Dreamcatcher_discography#Extended_plays. Agree? RangersRus (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as it has enough sources in Korean articles be it in Naver, Daum, or Nate. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to these articles so they can be assessed? DonaldD23 talk to me 19:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreamcatcher_discography#Extended_plays. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buried Hearts

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

The article's title neither official nor confirmed as the English title from the independent secondary reliable sources. Also WP:TOOSOON. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Korea. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken in WP:TVSERIES, as long as the article had its creator, writer, and confirmed cast members with reliable sources, the article may be notable, and the title can be change if it's WP:COMMONTITLE. Aidillia (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidillia You're right about TVSERIES that's why I created a draft article of the drama but on COMMONTITLE I will disagree just for the same reason of my AfD rationale. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should just moved it to the original title? Aidillia (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, do you just wish to rename it? Feel free. (A note would seem enough but if you think your title is better, I support the move) Or to move it to Draft and merge with your Draft? I’m OK with that too but not opposed to Keep, given your exchange above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank I like the idea of merging it to draft to preserve the contents. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 22:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agrees with that, I support the idea. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete the article i create, is it possible? not to merge? just let 98Tigerius create it on another page of title.. Aidillia (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that this is at AfD, we have to wait for the close. I am not opposed to Delete if you, the creator and only content contributor, really wish, but it’s not my call. Can I ask why you want this deleted? Is it not better to merge? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better not to merge it.. it is not like I'm doing WP:CUTPASTE. Aidillia (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean a de facto merge with no redirect left behind, am I correct?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. You should bring an article to AFD if you are seeking its deletion. Lots of chit chat here but so far no consensus over what should happen with this article. Please give ONE bolded vote. Don't offer a combination of possibilities, just state what you want to happen today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz, I am honestly quite surprised by the content and tone of this relist. The page about how AfDs should be conducted says we can COMBINE various possibilities (at least TWO, and that is a quite common way to !vote, as you obviously know, so no, sorry, one should not ONLY bold ONE !vote if they consider two options are possible ); and the chit chat (I am not sure why you would want to use that word, that might sound dismissive to participants in this discussion and discourage them; such is at least my case) seemed like a constructive and polite discussion to me, and its goal was to reach consensus. For the rest, I think the nominator just changed their mind during the course of the discussion and originally wished to delete it. At the same time, the page creator changed their mind too and went from rename to delete; they eventually asked to have their own page deleted but I assume, your relist not mentioning that issue, that my reply indicating that we should wait for a close was correct (I indicated not opposed to Delete to allow the closing admin to choose that option). So, very sorry, I do not mean to be contrarian (and generally !vote for 1/2 for possibilities), but here, although I understand it is unusual and can appear contradictory, I will stand by my multiple !vote and do not mind if it goes one of the indeed multiple ways I bolded (some worded as "not opposed to", some being conditional, deletion if that is the wish of the creator; keep and rename if this is the target of the other draft redirecting to it or redirect and merge if it is made the other way around). My idea was precisely to allow a quick and easy close. Maybe I was wrong but that's what I meant. Now, it is true that no clear consensus has emerged so far. But that is rather common in AfDs and they can be closed as non consensus in that case. Most of all, a consensus might emerge from our chit chat, although it will be most likely without any further input from myself. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, Mushy Yank, if my words offended you. All I can say is that I review over 100 open AFDs every day and I might, at a certain point late at night, become a little glib or sarcastic. Considering that most admins and editors who relist discussions offer no comments at all, I didn't really consider that my remarks might land poorly. I'd strike my comment if I regreted saying it but it is still pretty much my assessment on the state of this discussion. It does look like recently some editors have bolded some words in their comments which makes things a little clearer. If you have no problems with 99 of my other relistings, can you forgive this one? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz, thank you for your kind reply, I probably overreacted anyway (maybe because I thought that this particular AfD was being held in a very smooth way with 2 friendly and thoughtful other users, which I found rather enjoyable and a good (and rather rare, alas) example in terms of civil interaction at AfDs) and realise now my reply was too long, especially regarding just one word, that I could have taken with a grain of salt. And, of course, your relists and the rest of your work are, as you know, appreciated by all, including myself. I'll try to bold less :D but this case is very special (never seen such a configuration and it probably will never happen again; two of the !voters have created concurrent/duplicate Drafts on the same (not necessarily notable yet) series: the nominator, who wanted it deleted, now wants it merged, while the creator, who wanted it renamed, would rather have it deleted, both with what I find to be acceptable reasons (I'm repeating myself, yes). Thank you again. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early WP:TOOSOON. Sources are announcements and is still in pre-production stage. RangersRus (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okjeo language

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

Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the Goguryeo language, for which some (controversial) evidence does exist. Kanguole 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]