Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real estate in South 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 delete. Any editor who is interested may begin a new Draft:Real estate in South Korea, but consensus is that the content as it exists would be a net negative as a starting point for an article. BD2412 T 02:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate in South Korea[edit]

[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)

The topic is notable but this pretty much unreferenced article is a WP:TNTable mess. The first section is pretty much a summary of 'geography of South Korea' with maybe one unreferenced sentence about retail market (that the apartment prices are high in the Gangnam district). Other subsections don't even contain any relevant information about retail market, housing, etc. The last part of the article is an unreferenced summary of the Jeonse concept, certainly important and relevant, but we already have a good subarticle for this. There is nothing to salvage here - blow it up so someone can restart it from scratch one day. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NUKEIT please. Has potential if written well. Yinglong999 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the nay-sayers think they can do better then they should present their drafts and explain why they can't just overwite the existing text. Deletion is neither necessary nor helpful when making such rewrites because blanking the existing text can be done with just two key strokes by any editor. And, when you actually rewrite articles, as I have done several times, you don't want to delete everything as the previous draft will usually contain useful boilerplate, headings and keywords.

The topic is, of course, notable. For example, see this article which quotes "Kwon Dae-jung, professor of real estate studies at Myongji University", showing that this is an academic subject. Our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE therefore apply: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WP:TNT and WP:NUKEIT are not policies and never have been so it's misleading to suggest that they are. They don't even apply because that page plainly says, in a nutshell, that it's for "For pages that are beyond fixing". The page is obviously not beyond fixing and the nominator does not appear to have made any attempt to do so. See WP:SOFIXIT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This is a tough one. One thing I've proposed before is that if someone suggests deleting an article via WP:TNT, they should have a draft of the new article in a ready enough shape to present as "yes, this is not just a backdoor perma-deletion". The article in its current state is frankly embarrassing, and while I concur with Andrew that article rewrites don't necessarily demand deletion (and the people who do for a rewrite often seem to be rather more focused on the deletion than the rewrite), I have to say it's much, much easier to do so somewhere that isn't mainspace. I'm honestly unsure that "beyond fixing" doesn't apply here. And yet -- for an unambiguously notable topic but one outside the range of most enwiki knowledge, I'm not going to trust anyone saying TNT until they can show me the rewrite. In lieu of that, while I have some skepticism about draftspace, I think the best solution for now is to move the article somewhere it can focus on being rewritten. (Alternatively, if an individual wants to take responsibility, it can be moved to their userspace.) Vaticidalprophet 14:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaticidalprophet, The thing is, badly written articles discourage most editors from improving it. In fact, I am assigning students to write on Wikipedia and I had one group interested in this topic - but they decided that dealing with a rewrite is too much of an issue and chose a different project. If this is deleted and a proper red link, I can add it to my list of topics I recommend students to write about, but I don't feel like adding the blue link to this mess is worth the trouble explaining to them that "actually, it's ok if you blank all the garbage there and start from scratch", not too mention that if this is done, than the past history is irrelevant, as my students would be the ones to create the article, and past authors of this would be falsely credited for contributing to content that all needs removing anyway. Lastly, draftification suggests the old content is reusable - but it is not, it's badly written OR. The topic is notable, but there is nothing to reuse/rescue here IMHO. Hence I stand by my TNT proposal. PS. I find the topic interesting enough I could stub it myself, but I am not willing to do so while the current mess occupies the space; also because it makes any expansion for DYK too difficult and DYK ineligibility decreases my motivation to contribute any serious effort to this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think you must have misunderstood me. I think this should be rewritten from scratch. I have experience rewriting articles, and I know it's harder than starting from zero. That's exactly why I think draftification (or userfication if an individual wants it) is the correct route. That allows the article to be totally disposed of, and the content redone. I don't trust the concept of total-deletion TNT because, in the absence of someone actually having a new version, it simply can't be confirmed that there's actually going to be a new article. (And if someone does have a new version -- why not just merge it in?) However, draftifying the article allows for it to be worked on in ways that would be impossible in mainspace because they would involve the article having empty sections or incomplete information for extended periods, which is necessary in a radical rewrite. I've done exactly this, writing userspace versions of substandard extant articles and replacing+histmerging them when I'm done, and you or your students could do that too. (With regards to DYK eligiblity...GA isn't a high bar for a competent writer.) Vaticidalprophet 03:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, That's mostly an aside to the AfD, but having written dozens of GA, the effort is much more than for a start-class DYK (which I wrote over 1k of). And a topic like 'real estate in Foo country', well, a GA on this would be quite a lot of effort - and probably hard to do without fluency in Korean. I can DYK this, I don't think I could GA this given my Korean is very basic. Anyway, back to the main issue at hand, I have no objection to draftication but let's face it - the draft will be abandoned and then speedied. Unless someone steps in and says they want to adopt it and rewrite, which I doubt they'll (as if anything can be done here, it needs to be done from scratch). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The topic is fine, but there's practically nothing worth salvaging here. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is poorly written and has barely any sources. Recent issues are not even mentioned. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:38, 29 March 2021 (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.