Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koreatown, Vancouver

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koreatown, Vancouver

[edit]
Koreatown, Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability, made up neighborhood. Simonkoldyk (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Needs sourcing, but on Google, once you got past the Wikipedia clones, I found [1] and [2] and [3] so there are reference acknowledging this neighbourhood, any one of which could be added to the article. I also found a real-estate page that lists Koreatown as a Vancouver neighbourhood([4]). Addtional Koreatown has also been the subject of a panel discussion at a conference ([5]) 23skidoo (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Cites 1 and 2 are clearly pastiches drawn from Wiki or wiki-mirror content like Nationmaster or Answers.com, i.e. the references are circular as deriving from Wiki articles where Koreatown was added/named/linked in wikipedia. They're not valid in the least; the clincher is the phrasing, the sequence of 'hoods named and so on (including that "Greektown" thing which doesn't show up on anything but wiki-mirror sites). As for No. 2, this would appear to be the "parent" site of teh idea that that locality is somehow Koreatown because there's a Korean nightclub and a bibimbap joint there; see below about what else there is; does the Montreal Fried Chicken Joint next door qualify this as "Quebectown" or the dessert place on the corner make it "Moussetown"? There's three or four fine French restaurants around there, and lots of francohpones, but it's not Frenchtown, either; it's just the West End, the Denman neighbourhood, verging on what's called the Stanley Park neighbourhood (the residential area west of Denman). The West End is incredibly diverse in all kinds of ways, yet the only even vaguely ethnic locus in the area was the old German community; the name Robsonstrasse remains only; other than that the "ethnic" affinity in the West End is gay, very gay (in fact that Korean club used to be....."The Underground"....but it's been lots of things before that, too), and Davie Village carries that "ethnic" tag even thugh Denman's clientele and stores are "just as gay"; there's gypsies around there, too, and lots of Arabs and Persians and assorted new-arrival Europeans. Korean business promoters are always trying to launch a Koreatown in Greater Vancouver so they can have their own ethnic enclave; they've tried to make one on North Road, but efforts to re-name that area after buying it up/taking it over were blocked by remaining non-Korean merchants and also the largely non-Korean population of the same area; efforts to start another "Koreatown" in Surrey were stopped by the businesses the Korean developers wanted to evict in preference for Korean-only tenants, and the general resistance of the three otherwise-multicultural-friendly city councils whose turf it is. Yes, there's a desire to create a Koreatown (or two or three or four) in Vancouver, among certain Koreans that is, but nobody else has bought into the idea and there is no civic designatino, or even anything vaguely resembling so much as an endorsement; instead there's comments from pols liek "we have no intentions of establishing an official Korean enclave" (it should be noted that Chinatown, Japantown, Punjabi Market and others like them have historical and community underpinnings, and were not "invented"). Referring to the Denman & Robson area as Koreatown is just asinine. I know I'm supposed to be diplomatic and "in good faith"....but I can't in the face of an article which isn't truthful, and while its promoters are in earnest, their reality isn't.....the additions to the article which tried to justify it by referring to the Seymour/Hastings concentration of language schools is also bunk; yes, there's a Korean-langauge internet/employment/travel agency there, but that's not a Korean-only area in the slightest either; Koreans might want it that way, but it's not (there's at least much Brazilian Portuguese overheard in that area as there is Korean or Japanese or Spanish....or stock-promoter-speak for that matter, it's a business area and the presence of Korean-only businesses doesn't make ever4ybody else Korean, or it a Koreatown....it's a student ghetto, but not a Korean ghetto, or anything that makes it anything more Korean than it is anything else....Skookum1 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Those aren't reliable sources and this article will never be sourced beyond a handful of marginal driveby references. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - perhaps not by Wiki's narrow standards, but the one from Canada.com (the Southam newspaper chain) that I just added to my comment above referencing a conference related to Koreatown is. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only doesn't say where it is, but puts it in quotes in a way that wouldn't be used for, and is unnecessary for, Chinatown, Japantown and Punjabi Market/Little India or Little Italy. Quotes would be used for names that are proposed/fictional/theoretical....and that article in any case is a press release from a racially-oriented political group, including no doubt people who want there to be a Koreatown, and want it discussed at a conference as to how it can be brought about. Like the immigration law site (no.1 cite above) it's a business/organization which has its own motives for pandering to Korean powergroups. And by the way, Southam Newspapers print lies and promotional material all the time.Skookum1 (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Merge Sources that use the term but do not describe it are totally fine, as long as they are used to prove that the term is actually used :) Also, a number of non-interrelated sources, which according to some guidline aren't reliable, is still a lot better, than no sources at all. So, in general, it has potential to be well sourced, it is only a matter of someone taking it up, there are some 25000 google hits on koreatown+vancouver, and there are articles about other districts of the city, so I can't really find a reason why this article shouldn't be given a chance to get better. DubZog (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no it isn't. First of all Google hits are not an accurate measure of reliability. Second of all, if there aren't any reliable sources, a well sourced article can't be written and therefore does not meet the guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Last, if you read the link I provided (WP:NEO) it specifically says that sources that use the term but do not describe are, in fact, not sources at all and also do not meet the guideline for inclusion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of google hits alone isn't a sufficient criterion for inclusion, however, one cannot claim that it provides no information AT ALL. And mind you, the article itself is not about the neologism, but rather the district, so perhaps the option of keeping the article but renaming it should be considered? (Even though I am not too sure if it is a good idea...). Anyhow, I will stick to my WEAK keep arguement, since I believe that even though the article lacks reliable sources at the moment, it can be improved, and the topic itself (a district)would make a fine encyclopaedia article.DubZog (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make much sense. Do we delete the article once district boundaries are finalized? The fact that the "boundaries" are still in flux suggests that the article is premature, if anything. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, the West End is tiny, but here we're talking about a claimed place based on two service stablishments, maybe twelve if you count lower Robson (as is also named); amid many other kinds of estabslihments, and a dominantly non-Korean population also. Worth mentioning in terms of scale that Japantown is very small - four or five square blocks in total and no longer visibly Japanese, save for one or two businesses and teh Japanese community hall; yet it has a designation because of its historical profile, even though it is now barely Japanese at all (the Asian presence there is mostly Chinese now). The Korean microcosms this article wishfully promotes as a Korean equivalent to the established/official ethnic enclaves are dwarfed by a number of other areas with greater concentrations of Korean businesses in the suburbs; the aforementioned North Road, but also the southeastern end of the Metrotown area of Burnaby, and elsewhere on Kingsway as well as variously in Coquitlam and Surrey, and that includes areas with not so much Korean neighbourhoods as an entrenched Korean presence across suburban neighbourhoods, focussed on particular malss and stores; what's being promoted here is a commercial space, based in ethnic marketing/identity - one that doesn't exist, EXCEPT as a promotional idea. Essentially, that makes this article spam.Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Nasty Delete This article is bunk, put forward by people who want there to be a Koreatown and are trying to create one by "buzz". The one comment above "until district boundaries are officialized" is so glib it's quite laughable; there is no district to have boundaries, the alleged boundaries will not be officialized; well, maybe thirty years from now once Vancouver is all officially-named ethnic ghettos, but it ain't happened yet. If there's a Koreatown in Greater Vancouver it's on the New West-Burnaby-Coquitlam boundary on North Road, a good 15 miles away from the West End. I have comments about the "cites" provided in one of the first entries above which I'll make up there, but suffice to say that there's a number of French estabslihments in teh same area, but it's not Frenchtown; there's a number of Vietnamese places in teh same area, but it's not Little Saigon, and tehre's far more Japanese eateries (and generic fast food joints) in teh same area than anything Korean. It is totally unverifiable; it's not on the city's website for a good reason - it doesn't exist.Skookum1 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment_"This article is bunk, put forward by people who want there to be a Koreatown and are trying to create one by "buzz"."_ You don't seem to have any evidence to support this claim, so instead of commenting on other editors of wikipedia you should consider trying to stick to the point in the future. After all, you surely must be aware of the assume good faith guideline, right? DubZog (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply Oh, I can't comment on faulty logic put forward by an IP user, who by my guess (in all good faith) is probably someone from one of the two establishments that cite 2 above is from?? I can't point out suggestions that the article should stay until the place it describes comes into existence? Sorry, this isn't about good faith, it's about calling something what it is: unreal, a fantasy, a make-believe promotional scam! Designed to favour two businesses in particular, in fact. I don't have evidence to support my "claim"?? Good grief; I just listed all the non-Korean elements in the neighbouurhood which make it NOT-Koreatown. It's not a Korean residential enclave, it's not even a Korean commercial enclave, and what Korean enclaves there are elsewhere in Greater Vancouver are much larger, but also not "Koreatown". it's definitely an agenda of something someone wants to exists, but it is not about something that does exist. It's bunk, pure and simple, and "in good faith" you shoudl accept my word, as a thirty-year resident of Vancouver, that it just doesn't exist. I'm sure other Vancouver and BC editors will come forward here to underscore that in various ways; would a snapshot of the other businesses in the blockx in question satisfy you that what I am saying about it is not a "claim"?? You're asking me to prove something's non-existence, when in actuality its only-purported existence is what's at issue here. The onus is not on me to disprove it, but for it to be proven. Somebody seeding the internet with information about a supposed place doesn't make that place real....you impugn me further by saying that I'm "commenting on other editors of Wikipedia". I commented on one IP address editor and their faulty logic; you, by extension, jump all over me for supposed lack of good faith. Faith and truth are not the same thing; I repreesent the latter.Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Riight, well, first of all, the article was created by a registered user; other registered users have contributed to the article, (as well as unregistered ones, which doesn't mean that they weren't trying to improve the encyclopedia), and all comments on this page are by registered users, including the ones which suggest to keep the article. Haven't you ever considered the opportunity that all these editors are just mistaken by the large numbers of internet-based resources, which claim that there indeed is a Koreatown in Vancouver. I'm not trying to say that this article should or should not be deleted at the moment, it is just that assuming that all those editors who have contributed to that article (or even the majority of them) are trying to trick wikipedia by writing about a thing that does not exist needs to be explained in my opinion, because it's surely not something as obvious as you are trying to make it look like. However, our arguement isn't improving the article, nor getting us any further in this AfD discussion, so this is my last contribution in this particular field. And one last thing, I'm not trying to force you to believe any of what I'm saying; I just think that if you thought about it for a moment, it would be good for me, you and wikipedia alike. Cheers. DubZog (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I remain unconvinced that there actually is a well-defined "Koreatown" in Vancouver, it just looks like a neighborhood which happens to have a large percentage of residents of Korean descent. That someone might mention the word in real estate advertising does not mean that the term has any widespread acceptance, and that leaves the factual foundation for the article rather shaky. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't even have a large pcercentage of residents of Korean descent; that's the point. There is no one particular ethnicity dominant in that part of the West End, not even close; we're talking only about commercial storefronts, not a focussed community.Skookum1 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koreatown,_Vancouver&oldid=1069995477"