Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myungbaksanseong

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. Also please see WP:Coatrack. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myungbaksanseong[edit]

This article has political purpose. and This word has been expired in Korea. In ko.wikipedia, Its Deletion discussion is being continuous, and ja.wikipedia, It was deleted.--Kwj2772 (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy and strongly delete It doesn't have any historic value. -- Theoteryi (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definately was not made up. Even though not well known, this article is still notable. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, it most certainly was "just made up one day", it says so right in the article. You did READ the article before opining here at AfD didn't you? L0b0t (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're being snarky or just playing some weird semantics game. Of course "made up by the author of the article" is implied by WP:NFT. Otherwise the United States Declaration of Independence would qualify for deletion under Wikipedia is not something you and your friends drafted and ratified one day. Ford MF (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything was made up at one time or another. As Ford stated above, then the Declaration of Independence could be deleted. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 11:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I thought you were stating that the author of the article made it up. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No I was not saying the author made up the neologism, nor does wp:NFT require the author of the article to be the creator of the "thing made up one day." This article even states: "...this word was a sarcastic term created by a netizen..." so it seems clear to me. Your reductio ad absurdum is well taken though. My apologies for any confusion I may have caused. This article, however, still fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for nelogisms and Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for structures. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Although not well known, this article ties into political unrest in South Korea. It seems notable, and a good article all around. It even has a picture! :P Leonard^Bloom (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well written article, definately notable, even if not well known. Just because a word was expired does not mean that it did not exist at one time. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Word has only been around less then one month. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Put the information in an article on the Beef Imports Fracas, if there is one. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Strongly oppose to delete! This term came from Korea and editors of Korean Wikipedia have discussed, now it seems to be kept but not determined yet. We could follow the decision of Korean editors later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuch (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No historical value. --Eleassar my talk 06:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the English wikipedia, not a korean slang dictionary. Too minor to exist as its own aritlce.Yobmod (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Current U.S. pop-culture is represented down to individual episodes of TV series, and single phrases from cartoons, which is as it should be, since this is the kind of thing Wikipedia does best. But to, at the same time, intentionally remove a sourced, well-written article on a topic in Korean society is to intentionally push cultural myopia and bias onto Wikipedia. We should work against that. Dekkappai (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Reply I was posting a reply of that exact quality, but an edit conflict canceled out my posting of links to LOL, Ceiling cat, and All your base are belong to us. The political unrest in Korea is huge right now, and this should be acknowledged by the keeping of an article that describes the reaction the government in question. Also, how is this not historical important? The government is showing it's solution to social unrest! That's usually pretty important. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a redirect set up for Lee Myung-bak's castle, it now redirects to Myungbaksanseong. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherstuff exists is not a good argument. Also, my problem with this term is that it is not English. English speaking people will never search for it. If it's topic is really notable, there should be an English language equivlanet, but there isn't.Yobmod (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter part of your contention is that if it was notable, it would have an English equivalent, and I agree to some extent, but something that doesn't have an English equivalent already exists on Wikipedia. After WWII, the Germans had to deal with their past and what they did, and they have a word for it (Vergangenheitsbewältigung), and looking through some articles, I found two that relate to this very idea, one is a full article, and another is substantial section of the Consequences of German Nazism. Although your point about it not being searched by English users is valid, I don't think deletion is the appropriate measure for that problem. We could just mention it and link it somewhere else, a much more travleled article, such as the article on the Government of South Korea. Much appreciated, and happy editing all, Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other stuff exists is not the argument. The argument is that if this is an "encyclopedia" it should cover both English and non-English subjects, unless it wishes to intentionally be biased and myopic. The latter part of your argument is shear nonsense. Every non-English subject needs to have an English title now? Dekkappai (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The one above yours, the one to which you were replying, Leonard). Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MB Castle is just one-day event. Do you really think that 'one-day event' can be an article of Wikipedia? adidas (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the length of an event is short doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Leonard(Bloom) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best redirect to US beef imports in South Korea. This is text-book example of WP:NEO. The article itself is so poorly written that it takes a while to understand what it is about. It is both attempting to define the word (for which we have Wiktionary, and where the word might be accepted), and to deal with the protest regarding US beef imports in South Korea. The best place to deal with the protests is in the article about the protests, where the word may be used after carefully reading the guidance on WP:NEO. Given that this is a recent word, and is used in conjunction with one event, I would say it is far too early to enter it in Wiktionary, but a reference to the term might inform the US beef imports in South Korea article. SilkTork *YES! 10:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the criteria of inclusion, for Wiktionary, I didn't notice anything directly relating to neologisms, but I think that the section about idioms is the most constructive to the issue here; Myungbaksanseong is nothing more than a South Korean idiom, and I think because it indirectlty applies to the U.S., it should be added to Wikitionary (as well as being kept here, for the above reasons). Leonard(Bloom) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is here. The wording is: "Spanning at least a year. This is meant to filter out words that may appear and see brief use, but then never be used again. The one-year threshold is somewhat arbitrary, but appears to work well in practice." SilkTork *YES! 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MB Castle has much historic value in korea. In addition, korean newspaper and TV news program use this word. -- LuciusValens 02:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism for now. I might change my tune if some new sources could be unearthed (e.g. if the NYT reference mentioned earlier could be unearthed; I couldn't find it). If deleted, of course, there should be no prejudice against its recreation if down the road a bit the neologism turns out to have some legs beyond this one isolated instance. Ford MF (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Choe Sang-hun (2008-06-12). "An Anger in Korea Over More Than Beef". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-23. Here, the NYT reference. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be a total dummy, but I don't see mention of this word anywhere in the article. The barricades are mentioned, but there is no mention of a special barricade word that erupted from the demonstrations. Ford MF (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because this word was made up recently does not qualify it for deletion. It still happened in history, and even if it is not so well known, it is still notable. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 11:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually that does qualify it for deletion. The inclusion criteria for nelogisms is pretty clear, with the reliable source criteria for neologisms telling us that

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."

Article also fails inclusion criteria for structures. The word might merit a mention in an article about the protests but as for a redirect, this seems like a highly unlikely search term in the English language Wikipedia; the Korean Wiki is a better place for this (anyone know the status of that article). I would also disagree that the protests are in any way notable as well. People on the peninsula have been regularly and frequently petitioning their government for redress of grievances in a most enthusiastic manner since the armistice. P.J. O'Rourke has written about the ubiquity of protests in the ROK and Larry Bond has even used them as a plot device. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Your last four sentence show very inappropriate scornful tone against not only the protest but also South Korea, and too obviously you don't know the current ongoing situation in South Korea as degrading it. You're assertive for your claim with no source. I don't know who you're, but how do we confirm your essay right? That kind of attitude does not earn your claim plausible or any respect for yourself. Cheers --Caspian blue (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s Who are Larry Bond and P.J. O'Rourke? They might be notable in one country, but not in the world, so if you want to take examples, well search and show some good ones. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Caspian, didn't mean to come off sounding "scornful". My statement is quite clear, in that there have been regular protests in the ROK since the end of the Great Fatherland Liberation War. O'Rourke and Bond are both authors who have written about the ubiquity and regularity of Korean protests. That is, however, another topic for another day. The topic at hand is this particular article about a Korean neologism applied to a structure built at a particular protest. Here is Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for nelogisms and here is Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for structures; this article fails to meet the standard established for either subject. The references provided by others here also fail to bolster the article's case because they only use the neologism in question, they are not reliable sources about the neologism as required by Wikipedia's reliable source criteria for neologisms. As for what I do or do not know about the situation in Korea and wether I am "degrading" it or not, please assume good faith. In fact, I have spent several years on and around the Z throughout my professional career and do maintain a working knowledge of Korean affairs (I certainly would not call myself an expert but I am smarter than the average bear.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:07, 30 June 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/Myungbaksanseong&oldid=1140262047"