Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexism 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 keep. L Faraone 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in South Korea

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

Highly derogatory POV, synthesis, essay and original research. Article may exist solely to promote the views of the author of the first given reference, which is a blog and personal opinion at best. ~~No other country-specific article of this type exists in Wikipedia.~~ Edit: Apparently there is one, but it's not an opinionated essay sourced to a blog. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexism in the United States" redirects to Sexism. Could be WP:BOLD and do the same with this one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sexism in India, Sexism in academia, Sexism in video games, Sexism and Islam. Racism in South Korea Racism in Russia Racism in Australia Racism in Israel Racism in the Palestinian territories, Racism in Asia, Racism in association football, Racism in North America, Racism in British India, Racism in Hungary, Racism in Poland etc etc etc ad nauseum. I formally deny any connexion to any of the cited blogs or sources btw. -Samsara9 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change that the piece is written as an argumentative essay and not as a neutral encyclopedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is Wikipedia and anyone is free to delete, change, modify, alter, add, subtract, or whatever. The current argument is, "is this an entry or not?" -Samsara9 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbed - but there's hardly anything there without the editorializing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. The topic itself is notable; the article however is a very bad start. The unreferenced parts are actually ok (just source them to the Global Gender Gap report). I am more concerned with the sections "Yoon Chang-jung affair" and "Jang Ja-yeon and Jeong Da-bin affairs". Without reliable sources labeling them as sexism, this is indeed OR. It may be better to rename this to Gender inequality in South Korea, and rewrite as part of the Category:Gender equality by country. There are some decent examples there. PS. Korea-wise, the closet parent article I can find we have is women in South Korea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Poorly written. If you want to create the page, you should write much more sourced contents.--Syngmung (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename Women's rights in South Korea or as suggested above Gender inequality in South Korea. I prefer the former as a sounder scope for the article that is less susceptible to the temptations of POV. Try to use more books that meet RS requirements; journalistic sources are trickier to use without lapsing into OR or POV. An AfD only determines the notability of the topic; "poorly written" is specifically not grounds for deletion. There is no reason that women's rights or gender inequality would be less notable in South Korea than in any other major country, and even the most casual search (with parameters reflecting potential renames) will show that RS exist.[1] [2] [3] [4] Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable. Article is in terrible shape, but those are surmountable problems and not del reasons. Mkdw ^talk 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant amount of secondary source coverage of this topic. Further discussion, about whether or not to rename the article, itself, can take place, at the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (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.