Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mbnomics


 * 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. John254 01:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mbnomics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I didn't want to just delete, so here you are... all I could find that was decent was this.  Alex Muller  12:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's this, this and this in addition to 6000-odd links on google to several korean newspapers and other sites that use this term for the economic policy....sometimes, as if it were very popular. It does seem to be a widely accepted word in Korea at least. Here's a pdf document from the ADB website and here's another from the AFDB. Prashanthns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment By all means, feel free to enlighten me as I dont pretend to know all things wiki... however, shouldnt this be a wikitionary thing? On one hand, we do have terms like Baby Mama... so I'm torn.   Qb  | your 2 cents  12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepNeeds re-write. There are enough secondary sources (see above). Used widely in the Korean press (per google search). Prashanthns (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Keep - The conditional aspect of my keep opinion is that the article be written from a Neutral point of view. The current version is extremely POV.  I’ll clean it up a little, but this is definitely not my field of expertise.  The primary reason for my keep, is that I believe it has established enough media attention, as shown here  to meet our criteria for inclusion on ShoesssS Talk 13:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- Struck conditional and POV comments in that I have cleaned up and sourced. ShoesssS Talk 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Just enough content to not be a WP:DICDEF or WP:NEO but more english references are needed for verifiability. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Oh I agree, that’s what I am working on now. We should be able to get two to three paragraphs at least.  Definition of the actual policy – implementation of the policy and current views of the policy.  ShoesssS Talk 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:45, 5 July 2008 (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.