Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military[edit]

Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military (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)
Although the subject appears to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and thus could arguably pass WP:GNG, the subject of the article falls within the scope of the article Prostitution in South Korea, and thus IMHO opinion falls under the guideline WP:CFORK which states

Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided.

As of the creation of this AfD the size of the Prostitution in South Korea article is 19,813 bytes, far smaller than the size described in WP:LIMIT. Therefore, per CFORK I am proposing that the article be deleted and the content merged into the Prostitution in South Korea article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. This is a notable topic, but the article is POV-pushing train wreck. As some examples from a single paragraph, it states that "Former South Korean prostitutes remark that they have been the biggest sacrifice of the South Korea-United States alliance" - the source specifically attributes this remark to a single woman. "The women also see themselves as war victims" - the source is clearly referring only to the views of a group of 60 women. "They are seeking compensation and apologies" - the source is also clearly talking about the views of a group, and not all as this implies. Earlier in the article it's stated that "Second Republic viewed prostitution as something of a necessity" - the source states only that "Transcripts of parliamentary hearings also suggest that at least some South Korean leaders viewed prostitution as something of a necessity", and so does not support such an unequivocal statement. The article also contains the difficult to believe statement that "During the 1960s, camp town prostitution and related businesses generated nearly 25 percent of the South Korean GNP" - the source carefully attributes this to the view of a single academic, but that's been left out here. A fair amount of material is about prostitution in South Korea in general, so it's unclear why it's here. I'd note that the author of this article has also been engaging in similar POV-pushing in the Recreation and Amusement Association article. Much of the text in this article is only slightly changed from the sources, so I suspect that this should also be deleted on copyright grounds. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you find a typo error, you can correct the typo. According to RightCowLeftCoastNick-D, we have to ask all of one million over women, it's nonsense, New York Times have done their good work as professional. We trust New York Times than RightCowLeftCoastNick-D argument.--Syngmung (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)--Syngmung (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I am not POV pushing in the Recreation and Amusement Association article, now I'm busy in the article Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military and related issues like this page. I will reply on the article soon.--Syngmung (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: ** This seems to be a case for cleanup and not deletion. Shii (tock) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: If the article is deleted, all the contents will need to be merged with comfort women.--Syngmung (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is presently an RfC regarding the article Comfort Women, which the majority of individuals who have stated that the article should be limited to that of forced prostitution for the use of the servicemembers of the Japanese Empire.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of them tell what they think on the premise that there have already been the article Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. They seem not want to merged with comfort women. Your doing seems cheap trick to hidde the undeniable facts.--Syngmung (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the above editor saying I want the content deleted entirely from Wikipedia? That is entirely false.
My reasoning for merger and article deletion is rather clear in the beginning of the AfD. The content will be kept but in the article about the wider subject, which the subject of this AfD falls within. Or are we saying that this article does not fall within the scope of the proposed target article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the outcome is merge, the normal course of action is that the article is kept live, until there content is merged, and then the article is deleted; with what content is well references continues on in the target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clear significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that the content in reliable sources could be seen that way, but it still falls under WP:CFORK as stated above, and since the overall article about Prostitution in South Korea has not reached WP:LIMIT, it would be inappropriate for content which falls within its scope to be in a separate article. It has the possibility of duplicating efforts and content, whereas one more complete and higher quality article is preferential to two lesser quality articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only a couple of sentences need to be fixed. Only a little of it is POV pushing.Markewilliams (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:NOTCLEANUP, but that doesn't override WP:REDUNDANTFORK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep
  1. It is common to have an article specific to a military prostitution in addition to an article for a general prostitution in that country. See Prostitution in colonial India / Prostitution in India, Recreation and Amusement Association / Prostitution in Japan, German military brothels in World War II / Prostitution in Germany
  2. The size of this article is about 50 KB / 6,000 words while the size of Prostitution in South Korea is about 20 KB / 2,300 words. If the articles were merged, a simple size would be 70 KB / 8,300 words. This clearly exceeds the size of split (50 KB) per WP:SIZESPLIT. Moreover, the merged article's section balance would be extremely lost. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:TOOBIG, normally sub-articles are not spun out until the parent article reaches greater than 100k, merging the content which is in the subject of this AfD into the Prostitution in South Korea article would create an article that is at 70k, which is entirely reasonable. Also, if the content brought up by Nick-D the content would definitely be under that 70k.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Prostitution in colonial India is about prostitution in a historical period of that country, whereas prostitution in India is about its modern status; the article about the Recreation of Amusement Association is about an organization (who happened to have prostitution as one of its forms of "Amusement"), where as prostitution in Japan is about its modern status; German military brothels were not only in Germany, and thus the subject of that article is far greater than the article about prostitution in modern day Germany. So the current article is not about prostitution during a well defined period of history, it is not about an organization that sponsored prostitution, it is not about the running of brothels by a specific organization in a geographically defined area larger than the home country of the organization, it is about concurrent prostitution within the Republic of Korea, and thus clearly falls within the scope of the article Prostitution in South Korea.
Now there are statements of certain historical RoK governments' policies regarding prostitution, and that content can go within a policy section of those governments. Other such content about modern day prostitution in South Korea can be merged into the article that is already created with that as its primary scope.
Information about Women and offspring can go into the article about Amerasians, possibly with a new section that focuses on Amerasians from RoK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My first thought was that (per the deletion nom) it should be a section in the main Prostitution in South Korea article. However, that would be ridiculous, as the article proposed for deletion is much longer than the target article, and merging it would result in a badly unbalanced article with undue weight given to a subtopic. It's unfortunate but not at all unusual to have a better or more-developed article for a narrow topic than for an overview topic. A section that threatens to overwhelm a main article is precisely when a content fork may be legitimately created, per WP:SPINOFF. Even the nominator says the subject appears to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Unless an article represents a topic duplication (not just an overlap that can be accounted for with a summary section), an AfD has to be evaluated on its own merits, and I'm not seeing any criterion for deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for deletion is WP:CFORK, as the subject of this AfD's scope clearly falls within the scope of an already existing article whose size is not so great that it meets WP:TOOBIG, then the article should be merged into the existing article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what CFORK says or intends. There is no policy that requires a narrowly defined topic to remain part of a broader topic until the broader topic exceeds the recommended length. Again, see what WP:SPINOFF says about undue weight: if a detailed examination of something would cause it to have undue weight in the article, it's better to place the material in a separate article, and to represent the subtopic in a summary section. That seems to have been done here. It doesn't result in an article that is redundant (unless of course there have never been prostitutes in South Korea other than those who serviced the U.S. military), and if usual standards of POV and neutrality are applied it isn't inherently in conflict with the main article. It's simply a more detailed examination of a subtopic. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phoenix7777. Oda Mari (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was waiting for a good defense of this "redundant fork" claim but I'm not seeing it, so I will come firmly down on keep. Shii (tock) 12:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close. this is an obvious keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently different from Prostitution in South Korea to warrant its own page Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article has potential to provide complete and accurate coverage on a topic that deserves coverage. However, the original author appears to be focused on a one sided personal attack on an organization that cannot be responsible for the actions of every individual acting on their own. While the allogations maybe true, the complete story is not being told. The portion of who is actually initiating the human trafficking portion and whether or not the human trafficers forced them into this. After reviewing several of the postings by this contributor, it doesn't take much to see a trend. With all that said, my preference is the tell the entire store and under these conditions keep the article. jackson1950korea (User talk:jackson1950korea) 15:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Completely, personal attack by the SPA account jackson1950korea. Need your apology. You are trying to introduce wikipedia censorship from the view point of personality who jackson1950korea think undesirable users. Sea the article I made great deal with emphasizing general American soldies are just ignorant in good faith, and emphasizing their help for women to evacuate from their predicament. I want public and medias to know from the article, what only their voice could turn the bureaucrats cold hearts.--Syngmung (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BITE. Although the new editor (jackson1950korea) should assume good faith of the above editor, I must also inform the above editor of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The statement "I want public and medias to know from the article, what only their voice could turn the bureaucrats cold hearts." This is not what Wikipedia is for, and thus why Nick-D appears to support WP:TNT.
The subject needs to be presented neutrally, and if the above editor is advocating, then this may not be the case. This is why IMHO the subject would be treated more neutrally as a section of Prostitution in South Korea; it would require neutral summarization of the reliable sources out there. Now if that article expands to the point where it gets above 100k as stated in WP:TOOBIG then a sub-article would be more than reasonable, and likely more neutral through such a growth process.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
POV issues are not grounds for deletion if the topic is notable in its own right: only if the article is purely a duplicate content fork in order to push a POV. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of CFORK is that there are two types of unacceptable types of forking:
Now I am not say that it is not a POVFORK, but it most definitely falls under REDUNDANTFORK, and thus per guideline, "the more recent article should be merged back into the main article". And the subject of the AfD is the more recent article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't find the argument that this is a redundant fork very convincing. What is being proposed by the nominator is that the article be merged into the main article on prostitution in South Korea and then deleted. Even if this were a good course of action, proposing an AFD is simply misguided. First, do the merge. Then we can talk about whether this article is a redundant fork or not. But deleting an article based on the idea of some idealized (and as yet unsubstantiated) future merge is silly.
As the article currently stands, it has a wealth of information and resources, some of which have been cobbled together to support a POV, but others which are fairly authoritative academic texts on the topic or related topics. There's obviously a lot to write about, and I think it's fair to say the amount of controversy around this topic is probably several orders of magnitude greater than the general topic of "prostitution in South Korea". It'd be like saying the article on Vietnam war is a redundant fork of military history of the United_States; this wouldn't make sense because most people just aren't as interested in the overall military history of the US as much as particular notable wars, like the Vietnam War, and when someone writes an article about such an often-discussed topic like the Vietnam war, the appropriate thing to do is write a summary to put in thet parent article, not delete the child article and try to put its contents in the smaller confines of the parent article. --C S (talk) 22:40, 3 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prostitutes_in_South_Korea_for_the_U.S._military&oldid=1138259900"