Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Insurance Association of Korea

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. Tone 13:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Insurance Association of Korea

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I hesitate to nominate this for deletion, but feel I need to. This is a 13 year old article that has no references, and the Korean article is also free from citations. My looking for citations to support the article was relatively unsuccessful, and was insufficient to support general notability for the encyclopedia. I'm bringing directly to AfD rather than going the PROD route as I do not think this would class as a uncontroversial delete. However, arguments for WP:SNOW will likely turn up. Thanks for discussing. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no coverage in Korean media? Our coverage of Korea is pretty sparse. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why I took a look at the Korean version of the article -- no citations on that one either. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As not notable and certainly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Searching for Korea-specific topics can be tricky, since the government has some strong pushback against some outside internet services, and many Korean-language news sites aren't indexed well on Google, in my experience. Naver [1] brings up a long list of articles on this organization if you search for its Hangul name, 손해보험협회. The Hangul translates to "Non-life Insurance Association," for clarity's sake for anyone viewing the results. I didn't find anything incredibly detailed, but there are many, many articles focused on specific events and aspects of the organization that I believe meet WP:SIGCOV. Examples (with plenty more available): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Thanks to the nominator for considering this one carefully. Google results certainly make it appear non-notable, and the complete lack of sourcing in the article doesn't help. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to adjust our expectations about sourcing for Korea. Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google does not index Korean sources very well. A search on Naver reveals quite a few sources in Korean that demonstrates SIGCOV. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2020 (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.