Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bai-dal

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete - If someone wants to write a good, NPOV article on the subject, this start won't help them. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Bai-dal
Non verifiable, dubious content, possibly original research Proto 09:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, delete Proto 09:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . Someone's fantasy world. Here's the funny part: it gets about 800 google hits, most of which are not in English, but those that are appear to be posts in forums and so forth. Hundreds of them. So, what I think we have here is a nice Korean kid with a bit of a complex over growing up next to big ol' China, who thinks up an ancient Korean civilization that ruled most of China for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. -- BD2412 talk 09:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am having second thoughts on this, as further research from some of my fellow Wikipedians suggests that this myth has some legs in Korea - however, it remains highly inappropriate for it to be presented as fact-history. -- BD2412 talk 19:47, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above, and by reading the article's first sentence.   &mdash; Kjammer  &#8962;  10:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 11:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs a disputed tag or something, not deletion. Kappa 13:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per BDA. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: you appear to have taken all of two minutes to research that vote. Kappa 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (Adapted from your comment in a previous VfD:) Please review WP:NPA.  Barno 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you know how much time Radiant took to research his vote? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 15:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The timings of his contributions seem to indicate that. Kappa 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And how exactly is that relevant? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it be true to say your vote is essentially an expression of confidence in BDA's research skills? Kappa 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey now, Kappa, I'm not particularly quick on the draw to delete articles - I put fair labor into researching this, and found nothing but similarly-worded collections of impossible claims. To wit: "The first Korean nation, Han-gook (also pronounced whan-gook), was established in 7,197 BC and lasted 3,301 years". Google shows 239 English language pages for "Bai dal" -Wikipedia, (many of which are still not actually in English) and I tried quite a few of them. There are about 40 actual pages, and a lot of smoke and mirrors. -- BD2412 talk 17:42, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * BD2412 I know you researched this topic, and I thank you for doing so. However I find your hypothesis that "some kid" made the whole thing up to be rather implausible, and certainly not proven, which is why I vote for it to be kept with a "disputed" tag until someone with more specialized knowledge or skills can check into it. Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I must revise my analysis to say that some person made the whole thing up. -- BD2412 talk 22:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * If you mean that he posted something else 2 minutes before his vote, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done research previously. In any case, there's certainly no minimum research time required before one votes, and calling it out like this veers uncomfortably close to a personal attack.  I think an apology to Radiant is in order. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  16:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK I apologize to Radiant, it was badly worded and I was irritated when I said it. However I'm pretty sure that BD2412 is the only 'delete' voter who has done any significant amount of research, I'm happy to be corrected on this. Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article is a mixture of facts to create a synthetic that's unverified and hoax-ish. "There were people in America 30,000 years ago."  "Canada was settled 300 years ago."  "The ancient American civilization was ruined by Canadians."  That kind of thing.  Not wicked, but not true, and not encyclopedic. Geogre 15:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The proper treatment for unverified statements is to attempt to verify them, not to dismiss them as "hoax-ish". Kappa 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Kappa, I'm glad you're concerned with the "proper" thing to do. What would be the correct thing for an author to do?  Would it be A) Write whatever you want with the expectation that Kappa will vote "keep" for it?  B) Present verifiable and verified information, along with references?  This article fails its duty as an article.  It violates the deletion policy.  The "proper treatment" of things that violate the deletion policy is to vote "delete," not castigate other voters for not agreeing with you.  Geogre 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Which of those statements can you verify? Which statements about an ancient Korean civilization ruling China can you verify?  Does Geogre's contribution history prove that he didn't try to verify them?  Delete, unverifiable.  Barno 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't verify any statements about an ancient Korean civilization ruling China. But conveniently, there aren't any such statements in the article. I note that he made the more conservative statement "unverified" rather than the very confident-sounding "unverifiable". Kappa 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverified claims, no sources given.  The article was marked as needing verification on May 30, and it still has no sources three and a half weeks later.  I simply don't understand keep voters who insist that a delete voter falsify all the claims in a dubious article.  The burden is on the other party.  WP articles must be verifiable&mdash;this is absolutely non-negotiable.  If you want to keep this article, prove that it isn't nonsense.  Quale 19:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence given for claims. --Carnildo 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with clean-up. I believe this is actually a fairly well-known "legend" held by many Koreans and should have an article to discuss it but it would need to be in a factually-based way on the unverifiable legend. It should be noted that this verbatim content appears to have been removed from the Korea and History of Korea pages in the past. See: Talk:Korea, Talk:Korea, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Korea&diff=next&oldid=7007070, The Origin of the Korean People: Who are the Koreans?. Double Blue  (Talk) 00:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I think the source of this legend or hoax or whatever is the apocryphal Hwandan Gogi written in 1911. It's mentioned in Dangun and Chi You. Kappa 01:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable claims. JamesBurns 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the Baedal (&#48176;&#45804;) legend has no business being taken as historical fact, it has assumed an important role certain aspects of modern Korean nationalism. In particular, the Christian thinker Ham Seok-heon placed quite a lot of store in it. I'll put some more content in the article when I have time. ... Besides, we need something to point to the next time someone dumps a Baidal section into History of Korea. -- Visviva 05:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as an article on the legend. Needs complete rewrite, suggest move to Baidal or Baedal. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.