Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seoul Kims' guest house

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. No non-Lonely Planet references to determine notability. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Kims' guest house[edit]

Contested claim to notability based on Lonely Planet listings. I lean towards deletion based on lack of additional independent sources, and because Wikipedia is not a travel guide or directory. Visviva 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Listing in a travel guide does not confer notability. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can vote keep on my own article, but come on people, what is up with this attack new articles thing? There is little information on wikipedia regarding what is around Hapjeong station. Just because it is not notable to you in your frame of mind, doesn't mean it isn't globally notable. Hapjeong is a major station in Seoul and this youth hostel has many visitors. I think that you automatically swarm around it to shoot it down just because you don't know about it personally... that's just silly. It is in two books, and can be found in other websites on the internet. This hostel is a lot more notable than minor characters in sailor moon (as way of an example, an old page that I saw on wikipedia, and countless other minor but notable pages on here) Work with me to add details about this hostel instead of shooting an infant before it has time to grow. Thanks. Nesnad 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can... How would you feel about a merge-and-redirect to Hapjeong Station? That would allow the information to be preserved, and would help to fill that article out a little too. -- Visviva 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea... although I still haven't had made clear to me why this isn't notable enough to have it's own page when random snack foods from foreign countries and minor voice actors for foreign cartoons have their own pages and etc. Can that be explained to me? To me it feels like people are just jumping on the bandwagon so to speak with the whole "delete this" thing. Thanks. Nesnad 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (unless we can transwiki to Galbijim Wiki? Anyway I think that the article creator may be interested in contributing there.) cab 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You guys, if there is a page on this very minor person Sanae Takagi (as example, I personally think it's a prime example because this hostel is for sure more notable than this voice actor. That is just one of billions of minor but on wikipedia articles) why can't there be a page on a youth hostel? This is just ganging up against something for the sake of it, there are a lot of minor pages on wikipedia, this IS notable. Why can't you guys help me add information to the article instead of just killing this article as is? It is notable, someone please explain to me why it isn't? This is madness. Nesnad 10:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that people are ganging up on you for no particular reason, but there are in fact a lot of reasons why people may feel this particular article (along with others you've pointed to) don't belong in an encyclopedia. We have policies to try to determine what is notable and what isn't. See Wikipedia:Notability. General hard proof of notability is that the subject in question has been written about non-trivially (e.g. not in a laundry list or directory) by multiple reliable sources which are cited in the article.

The fact that Wikipedia has articles on loads of minor people, game characters, etc. doesn't mean that Wikipedia's founder or some administrator explicitly authorised them to create those pages. It just means that one single random guy like you or me felt like creating the page. In fact, every day, hundreds of pages that some random people felt like creating get deleted because large numbers of other random people think we should not have articles on those topics, and can cite policies to support their thinking. This process isn't without controversy --- look through the log of yesterday's deletion discussions to see some of the disagreements this generates. But in general, the best thing to do when you think about creating a page is to find sources beforehand. cab 01:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cab, thanks for the intelligent thoughts. I see I made the mistake of thinking wikipedia articles were BUILT instead of having to come prefabricated, ready from the start. I was in a hurry and didn't put all the content into this article from the start, and for that I realize I apparently made a mistake. But honestly, being that information about this place can be found in at least two books if not more, and other websites, why is it still being slammed as not notable at all? Can that be explained to me? I have read the article about notability and I am still in the dark. Thoughts? Nesnad 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as way of a PS, I assumed people would read the sources before not counting them, but reading your comment about "not in a laundry list or directory" makes me feel like you and the others on this page haven't even read the source and are claiming it to be invalid. I have read both sources (and so can you) and it isn't a "directory" or laundry list or whatever, its an article (yes tiny, but its not just a name of a place with a phone number, it really talks about the place) and it is a decent source. Read it before you knock it, know what I mean? Nesnad 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I read the Lonely Planet entries in question (thanks to Google Books); they appear in a section which gives large numbers of one-paragraph descriptions of similar businesses, which feels to me like a trivial directory entry. I guess we have a different opinion of what constitutes a "laundry list". Regardless, if your goal is to provide as much information as possible about the guesthouse, like I said above, Galbijim Wiki is your best bet, because they allow testimonials from webforums, personal experiences, travel guide style information (e.g. "how to find this place", "nearby restaurants", "which room numbers are the best because they face away from the noisy street"), and the like to be written into articles. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia which is largely restricts itself to using books, newspapers, and the like as sources, and highly discourages personal testimonies or travel guides; so here, we're heavily restricted by policy as to what we can write about this topic. cab 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cab, thanks for pointing out the list of pages being contested. I was too busy last time, but tonight I looked through it and found quite a few articles on there being voted KEEP that have less significance than this one. I'm not sure if List of Samurai Shodown characters will maintain its keep votes but the fact that it has a few keep votes when this one has none seems to show the "Korea isn't notable, move it off to some Korean specific use Wiki" bias that you seem to be sharing with the other "delete this" people. Why can List of Samurai Shodown characters get any keep votes when this one has only got delete votes? Does anyone see the bias? Thanks. Nesnad 18:49, 15 June 2007 (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.