Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eatyourkimchi

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eatyourkimchi[edit]

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

Non-notable blog jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that this blog is notable enough. You only have to read the first newspaper reference (which is solely about eatyourkimchi and the couple who run it). I think that it meets WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was marked as a speedy and then an Afd very early in its history. Sources and content have been added. It's Korean pop culture but I was still able to find two reliable English language newspaper sources. One source describes how the video bloggers have been on television shows and are now recognized and photographed on the street.Cloveapple (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this Korean language news article which Google translation shows to be all about the blog & it's creators [1]Cloveapple (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From Wikipeadia's guideline on the notability of web content (nutshell): For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. This blog may have some limited sourcing, but no more than the new Italian beef joint the next town over (the owner was on a Chicago morning TV show talking about the restaurant, and has had 2 newspaper articles about his restaurant). I do not think I have seen anything that demonstrates "historic" concerning this blog, so I have to think that it shouldn't stay. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - new sourcing looks convincing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you looked at the article the sourcing has grown beyond "some limited sourcing" since more sources are being added each day. The coverage is definitely past the level of your restaurant example. Also I have 2 more Korean sources that can't be used at all until somebody helps with translation. (I have asked several editors for help with this.) [2] [3] ~~I think~~ there are enough reliable sources out there to show notability. (I'll address the historic aspect seperately)Cloveapple (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now to respond to the other part of the WP:WEB nutshell you quote. In that quote the phrase "historical significance" is a link to WP:RECENTISM (recentism being the opposite of having historical significance). So here's why it's not an example of recentism: It's not a transient article topic that will be of no use in the future per WP:10YT. Instead the subject is similiar to any ongoing print travel guide series, magazine, or tv shows which has been reviewed and commented on. Also the article places the video blog in the larger historical context of the development of the Korean internet.Cloveapple (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be the subject of several independent reliable secondary sources (unless someone can show that these sources are somehow not reliable or not independent). The article needs a lot of work though, it certainly doesn't read like a worthwhile article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of independent, reliable sources. LiteralKa (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2011 (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.