Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macadamia nuts controversy

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 no consensus. NorthAmerica1000 04:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macadamia nuts controversy[edit]

Macadamia nuts controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content fork of Heather Cho; the latter page is already mainly taken up by this topic. Yoninah (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to that article. In theory selectively merge but Heather Cho seems already to contain enough detail and as a current/ongoing even it can be expanded and updated from sources such as news sources.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't forked that page. Shii added the contents on Dec 25 to Heather Cho. — Revi 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not particularly notable for a stand-alone article, spoilt girl throws a wobbly is not that rare or notable. If she is arrested and charged with being stupid then that can be covered in her article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MilborneOne....William 12:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Heather Cho, no need for two articles covering the same minor incident. WP:ONEEVENT applies. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a content fork, as the article is much longer and more detailed than the summary in the biographical article. Notability is clearly not an issue: there are plenty of reliable sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time, Fortune, The Economist. The affair is, however, wider than one person (Heather Cho). Regarding the merge, which should've been first discussed through merge discussion (but wasn't), I believe that the controversy has individual notability, is larger than the biographical article (She sparked it, but it is not limited to her. Here is a report that some government officials are stepping down. The incident led to the publicity and sales boost for macademia nuts: [1], [2]. And some articles focus also on the significance of this event for the Korean society: [3], [4].), and finally - merging this large article into the relatively tiny bio would create an even bigger focus from her bio on this one incident, raising some BLP issues. Splitting this into a separate article and keeping the summary of that incident in her bio is a better solution. (In fact, it could be argued that if any merge should happen, we should merge her article here: the incident has more visibility than her own person). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not notable plus WP:NTEMP. Who's gonna talk about this incident in two months?--Jetstreamer Talk 13:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I reviewed this article at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Macadamia_nuts_controversy. The person at the center of this controversy is Heather Cho, who may or may not be notable. I do not think this event should be merged to the article about her, because this event incited discussion about the control of very rich families ("Chaebol") in Korea. It would be WP:undue to merge this social debate about rich people into her biography, despite the fact that her actions sparked this iteration of the debate. These sources do not treat this event as an isolated incident, but rather as a part of a greater tension between socially elite people and the rest of society.
  • "Why 'nut rage' is such a big deal in South Korea". Washington Post.
  • "Korea's Nut Rage scandal ends with victory for the little people - Fortune". Fortune.
  • "'Nut rage' exposes the many cracks in South Korea's elite". The Independent.
The coverage that this event has gotten passese WP:GNG. Here is the event in United States news today, continuing three weeks of media coverage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of coverage but there's also an article Heather Cho which exists because of the same event; she's only newsworthy because of it. So we don't need two articles. Keeping the Heather Cho makes much more sense, first as it's more comprehensive (it would make less sense to shoe-horn her bio in here), second as the event though newsworthy doesn't have a single name – it's not "nutgate" for example – so doesn't have an obvious title, it's not clear where the current title is from (a search turns up almost nothing), and it would work as well as part of Heather Cho.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JohnBlackburne I am not sure. Heather Cho to me seems notable for WP:BLP1E. I thought in such cases it is more common to cover the event than the person. Nothing new has been said about that person after this event, but the impact of this event has been covered in contexts removed from her biography. How would you feel about all of this information being moved into her article? Would that not be WP:UNDUE? I regret when people say "move all this content to the other article", then when it gets to the other article, other people say "there is too much WP:WEIGHT on this issue". Is it your intent to cut coverage of this event to a small part of a biography, or do you think that this event can be covered to reflect reliable sources even as a subsection of that other article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be right, but I disagree that this is a clear case. Already we have an event that is published in major news media in at least 5 countries repeatedly from three weeks ago when it happened to present. The story was reported then revived at least twice to report two different perspectives. I see no way to merge this rather long article into any other article without deleting most of it, because as soon as it is merged into another topic someone will rightly recognize that the full length of this article would be undue to include elsewhere.
  • Yoninah, if this content is merged elsewhere, would you want it merged in entirety, or would you want it cut to be just a few sentences? There is a lot of content here which is coming from 18 sources now. If this was in Chaebol, my opinion is that 2-3 sources and 2-3 sentences would be the expected summary. Is that much content deletion really what you think is merited? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the topic is so important, I think someone should develop it under Chaebol. This would involve some serious research and writing to bring examples of many kinds of chaebol, this one among them. Mention of the Macadamia nuts controversy would probably be limited to a paragraph in that case. The fact that it has so many sources now is because it's part of the news cycle; in 6 months' time, I'm sure it will be supplanted by another hot news story and fade from the media memory. I understand your concern that this is a well-developed article, but it just doesn't meet WP:NTEMP. Yoninah (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah As you say, if this content goes to chaebol then almost all of it will be deleted. There is a full Wikipedia article here. You say there is no room for it here, and we know there is no room for it at chaebol, so it seems like this is an issue that you feel has no place for full coverage anywhere on Wikipedia. In my opinion, this story is also part of the history of Korean Air, either or both Heather Cho and Cho Yang-ho, and could be referenced in Category:Scandals in South Korea. If this article is deleted then that would mean that the short description of this story would need to be forked somehow in those articles, rather than just briefly linking them here.
What is your personal standard for passing WP:NTEMP? For me, I see about 20 sources published in five countries and three languages over three weeks. To me, this passes both WP:NTEMP and the broader requirement for significant coverage. Are you expecting more sources? More time passing? Coverage in more countries? More languages? Perhaps a journalist's or researcher's review? Can you help me understand the deficiency you see here? I know that we do not need to apply strict numbers to things, but I that this is one of the most broadly and extensively covered global news stories of the last year, in the sense probably not more than 10% of all news stories leave their country, get reported a month after the fact, and are translated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Heather Cho: She's the prime cause of this, if there was like 2-3 or more people doing this, then fine. But it belongs on her article for the most part. Tibbydibby (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You'd have to be totally ignorant about Korean culture, and arrogant, to want to delete this. This was probably one of the top news stories in Korea this year and will have a lasting impact on public perception of the chaebol. Shii (tock) 18:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment FYI (tock), I've been to South Korea, one of the ebooks I have written and sell at Amazon is set there, and I contribute to a blog for Korean and military topics. Please read up on WP:NPA and don't call people ignorant or imply that they may be racist....William 18:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's fairly irresponsible to throw in a contentless vote without even bothering to comment on importance of this topic. I mean, this was in the headlines in Japan and I'm sure it was in China as well. Shii (tock) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Heather Cho and/or Partial Merge with chaebol given arguments above regarding the biographical article focus under WP:UNDUE - A few years ago, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd abused an Air Force flight attendant on his VIP jet and reduced her to tears because he wasn't satisfied with the meal prepared for him. It received at least a weeks worth of media attention in Australia as well as being covered in New Zealand and the UK. Yet this scandal was not notable in the long term as per WP:NTEMP nor is it mentioned in Rudd's biographical article. Bearing this in mind, the "Nut Rage" incident should consider Subjective Importance as per WP:LOCALFAME - Shii (despite pushing the boundaries of Wikipedia:Civility) makes a point that this incident is culturally significant, but to say "This was probably one of the top news stories in Korea this year and will have a lasting impact on public perception of the chaebol" doesn't stand against WP:CRYSTAL. Also, bear in mind that outside of South Korea, and possibly Japan it would be difficult to satisfy WP:NOTNEWS as the reporting of the incident in English speaking countries (this is en.wikipedia after all) did for the most part not discuss the cultural consequences of the incident in any great detail, certainly not more than what can be covered in the bio and mentioned under the main chaebol article. Dfadden (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your analogy isn't very good. Your incident could be mentioned in the PM's article, but this story is rather different -- it's an issue about the Korean Air chaebol in particular and Korean society more generally. If you understand the context this isn't crystal ball gazing at all. Shii (tock) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and/or Partial Merge with Chaebol per Dfadden. Changing !vote to Keep (see below) Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nutgate is big issue in South Korea. Kanghuitari (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this event has spurred considerable social commentary, as evidenced by the links provided by Blue Rasberry. Analysis like that is the hallmark of an event that goes beyond a "temporary news story" to a topic of lasting importance... Many of the above arguments are just plain wrong. For example, the amount and nature of English language coverage is completely irrelevant. Any language is acceptable - it is the nature of coverage that matters. (See WP:N: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.") People saying it should be covered at Heather Cho are getting BLP1E backwards - the event, not the person has preference in most cases. And people citing NTEMP ("Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage") as a reason for deletion are either very confused or didn't read what they cited. It is a guideline that only makes sense as a keep argument (normally used at a date well after coverage has ended). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, @ThaddeusB:, I am mis-citing WP:NTEMP. I should be citing WP:EVENT, especially WP:LASTING. From the point of view of WP:EVENT, the past month's coverage could be considered "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time". If it tapers off a year from now, the page could be nominated for AFD under WP:LASTING. I am changing my !vote to Keep. However, I think the page name should be changed back to Nut rage or whatever it's popularly called in the press, because Macadamia nuts controversy leads you nowhere. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the article should probably be titled Nut rage (which redirects to the current title as of now). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I acknowledge that this event is clearly significant, and I agree with @Yoninah: on the application of WP:LASTING. I will concede that while I read reports of "Nut rage" here in Australia, it was framed as a humorous/ridiculous incident with minimal emphasis on the wider cultural issue in those reports, so I may have been a bit ignorant and hasty in my assessment of its significance (thankyou, Mr. Murdoch!) I maintain that the content should be kept, however I feel that unless the article is likely to be expanded further the context would become more apparent for those not familiar with Korean culture when tidied, merged and read as a subsection of Chaebol. Dfadden (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heather Cho who is notable now. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The event was significant and has continued reports and followups. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (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/Macadamia_nuts_controversy&oldid=1075699037"