Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service


 * 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. There has been plenty of discussion and it is clear that there is no consensus to delete the page in question. As a procedural point, note that the nominator cast a !vote indicating that they were no longer pressing for deletion and so that can be considered as a withdrawal. Whether the page should be merged or kept separate for improvement is undecided but this issue is best pursued by those interested in editing the article(s) to take the matter forward. The main issue with that is likely to be familiarity with the Korean language, which is likely to be needed to understand the best sources for this topic. Note that the Korean Wikipedia has a separate and longer article and so that should be a starting point for further work. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 22:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT. Does not present encyclopedic content WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT.  // Timothy ::  talk  04:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Its a national government agency of South Korea established by legislation.  The article is pretty weak, but that is not the question.  There is plenty of coverage in Korean. Rathfelder (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply and Question: Hi, does the coverage rise above WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and address the subject directly and in detail (rather than primarily addressing another subject/event, in which the agency was simply noted as being involved), so that no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH is needed to extract the content? WP:GNG In other words is the agency itself a principle topic of the reference (doesn't have to be the sole topic). if you can provide references, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination; I don't wish to have a notable article unnecessarily deleted.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I dont speak Korean. But given that this was established by legislation and manages a very substantial budget it would be very surprising if it was not discussed in quite a lot of detail. And I would suggest that national government agencies are generally notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think all national government agencies are notable by default of being national agencies and this one seems to lack in-depth coverage of it in multiple reliable sources. Even the Korean article about it is un-sourced. Which makes me think all the more that it's probably not notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is longstanding consensus that all government services of major countries are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Where is this "longstanding consensus that all government services of major countries are notable"? is it in a policy or guideline? I can't find it in WP:n. Where has the community decided that this "consensus" overrides WP:N? You really need to start basing your !votes on guidelines and sources, not opinions and feelings.  // Timothy ::  talk  19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you'd been here longer you'd have a better knowledge of what is and is not consensus. Not everything is written down. Not everything is a policy or guideline. That's why we have such policies as WP:IAR and WP:BURO (very unpopular with the more rules-bound editors, who like to claim that they don't apply in their particular case, I know, but policies nonetheless). Much has been determined over many AfDs over many years and those of us who've been here and contributed to them for many years just know what is and is not consensus, largely because we've helped frame much of it. To then be told by someone who's been here much less time how to contribute to AfDs (with the suggestion that that person is much more knowledgeable about the workings of Wikipedia than we are) becomes more than faintly patronising. I have stated that it is longstanding consensus that all government services of major countries are notable because that is indeed the case. I don't need to see it written down simply because I have personally been involved in many AfDs where it has been determined. Unlike some editors, I am perfectly comfortable with the use of consensus rather than some set-in-stone "rule". I don't always agree with that consensus, but I am happy to go along with it because I believe in a consensus-based, rather than rule-based, project. Neither do I believe that longstanding consensus changes because a small number of editors who don't like that consensus (or don't understand that not everything has to be written down to be true) suddenly start contributing to AfDs and patronising those of us who've been contributing to them for a very long time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: I'm sorry you feel patronized, I didn't bother to read your userpage, but longevity does not confer deference. You seem to understand WP:IAR as the rule and not the exception, which is a recipe for chaos. It also undermines the principle of !vote - "communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." - by reducing reasoning to a subjective opinion or reference to an unwritten alleged historical consensus or gnostic wisdom. It is impossible to reason or debate such an unwritten claim and risks turning a debate based on evidence into a poll based on opinion. It is also a convenient way to dismiss the arguements of other editors with less time on Wikipedia by simply claiming something exists without evidence. Finally, even if something may have been so in the past, this does not make it automatically correct, nor does it mean it will be considered correct in the future.
 * I will ask you to consider WP:AFDFORMAT - "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.". Based on this I ask that you engage in constructive discussion on whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies.
 * I'm far from perfect, it's easy to point out my mistakes and I acknowledge them freely, and I know I'm still learning. But I am good a self-reflection and correction when I become conscious of a fault. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for others.  // Timothy ::  talk  00:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think once again you misunderstand. I am not in any way suggesting that you should show me deference. Longevity in any field of activity does, however, imply knowledge and experience. I certainly do not use IAR as "the rule and not the exception", as you would know if you read my contributions (I'm not suggesting you should, merely pointing out that fact). But some topics are to me (and many others) clearly notable, whether or not they satisfy some narrow "rule", and IAR merely points out that such "rules" should not be slavishly followed to the detriment of the project. That is why we have such notability guidelines as WP:POLITICIAN, WP:MILUNIT, WP:SOLDIER, WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GEOLAND, which may sometimes conflict with WP:GNG. That is why we have WP:AFDOUTCOMES. Precedent and consensus, formulated at AfD and elsewhere, is important. And my point was that if you'd been here as long as I have you'd know that. Not agreeing with another editor's opinion is one thing, but essentially telling them they don't know what they're talking about because they expressed it and that they therefore know nothing about Wikipedia and should learn how it works (and find a mentor to teach them!) is entirely another. May I suggest you simply allow other editors to state their opinions at AfD without constantly challenging them and insisting that they adhere to "the rules". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This organisation is clearly central to understanding the working of healthcare systems in South Korea. That is why government organisations of this kind have assumed notability.  Rathfelder (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, upon what basis do you make that assertion? Didn't you state above that you don't read Korean, and that you aren't actually sure what this does?   Ravenswing      15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a national government agency of South Korea. Wm335td (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence that this meets the GNG beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. That being said, rather than a patronizing and uncivil lecture (especially one citing AFDOUTCOMES when this particular "consensus" is found nowhere within it), I likewise would like to see proof that a consensus exists exempting every governmental agency, no matter its size or scope, from standard notability guidelines. (After over 15 years and participating in several thousand AfDs, one might refrain from hauling out the shut-up-noob card.)   Ravenswing      15:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are similar organisations in most countries with developed health systems. They may be quite low profile but they are very significant. Rathfelder (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ministry of Health and Welfare (South Korea). I'm surprised this has not been proposed as an option in this discussion. The agency carries out a function of the Ministry. A notable function, of course, but still just a function of the Ministry. Since both articles are rather short at the moment, merge them unless and until content and sourcing is provided for this specific agency to justify breaking it out into a separate article again. BD2412  T 04:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge This seems like a logical and obvious solution. Yes the information is important, but it is also routine and not necessitating a separate article from the ministry it falls under. A new section should suffice. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree merging and trimming the article into Ministry of Health and Welfare (South Korea) is an acceptable compromise that keeps some good information while removing a non-notable article.  // Timothy ::  talk  17:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge, per BD2412. National agencies may be notable, but that does not necessarily mean they require standalone articles; and where coverage is sparse, they are better handled in the articles about their parent institutions. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.