Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Passing


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Korea Passing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete -- While there are multiple issues with the page, I think it can be boiled down to three issues. First, it promotes a neologism which does not seem to have reached much notability (with little effect on history/current affairs) and is used in a one-sided manner. Evidence of this is seen, for instance, in the section entitled 'criticism', which only suggests other neologisms to described the supposed 'phenomenon' and attempts to justify and endorse the use of the phrase 'Korea Passing'. Second, the page itself seems to present a one-sided viewpoint against South Korea rather than explaining the term 'Korea Passing' and when it is used. This is evidenced by how the article has only been edited by a few editors, most notably since 20 August 2020. Finally, the article itself only seems to include criticisms of South Korea in general rather than actual analysis of the supposed neologism. This is shown by how the article itself seems to lack much reference to the phrase 'Korea Passing'. These issues would fall under points 3 "Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish" and 6 "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)" of the Wikipedia deletion policy. NettingFish15019 (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete The article is very unbalanced. It would be difficult to fix this because Korea Passing is often used in a derogatory manner towards South Korean foreign policy. It would probably be better for the article to be deleted to avoid encouraging this neologism. Sakaguchi_Koji (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC) ''' Striking. Confirmed sock puppet of NettingFish15019.  ~Oshwah~ ''' (talk) (contribs)   05:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for this violation of Wikipedia policy, and will take note of Wikipedia guidelines in the future. NettingFish15019 (talk)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 10.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep A google new search implies the topic is notable. While the nom has issues with the content of the article, those should be addressed via editing not deletion of the article. Jeepday (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Responding to User Jeepday, 'Korea Passing' has largely been used as a neologism in some secondary sources. However, most of these sources, especially the ones cited in this article, only use the term rather than explain or say something about the term. This is under WP:NEO for the deletion policy. I also don't think this can be fixed via editing, because the article and the topic itself is inherently non-neutral (under WP:NPOV). Under the 'controversy' section, there is little to nothing about the phrase 'Korea Passing' itself but rather a description of South Korean foreign policy, which seems unlinked to the phrase itself and is already included in pages on South Korean foreign policy. There also appears to be little research done on this topic, apart from what is mentioned in secondary sources. NettingFish15019 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking your "delete vote". You can comment as many times as you want, but can only "vote" once. Natg 19 (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for other than socks of the nom to vote.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 19:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Concept seems to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 19:40, 29 December 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.