Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Knowledge Worker of Korea


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

New Knowledge Worker of Korea

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unsourced substub about an award (title?) of non-obvious notability anyway. Pundit | utter 08:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources about this award and title in South Korea (in their own language, Korean says Sinjisikin in their language). However you can find many of articles like and,  and. This award is so notable than an order and medal. The official translate of this 'Sinjisikin' is New Knowledge Worker of Korea,. I can guess you may not catch this and other national title around the World with some language barriers. If you have any doubt, you may need to contact to Korean Government, specially Ministry of Public Administration and Security of Korea, before you or other staff consider to delete this wikipedia article. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can also guess English wikipedia may need to put more titles which are awarded and/or supported by national governments than English speaking countries and Russia, because there are just few other nationals' awards and titles (especially China and other Asian nations). I heard China also confers some national levelled titles like Russia. I can be ridiculous, if most of nations doesn't have their own title system like America and Russia (in this case, Knew Knowledge Worker of Korea is just one example showing Korean title awarding system) Mailzzang+aus (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well, as long as this information gets introduced into the article, It may make some sense to keep it indeed - but without introducing proper sourcing into the article (not not just into this discussion) the article is not in a shape warranting its survival. Pundit | utter  15:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your respond, I put some references including Korean government sources on this article. If you think the additional references should be fine, please delete the deletion notice on the article. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess this issue may have been settled as no more objection on references including Korean Government's, which put by me. If there will be no more discussion, we may finish this discussion. Thanks Mailzzang+aus (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I now remove the deletion message on the main article, because here is no more objection in this discussion board and the issue had been soundly settled. If you have any option, please put a message to the talk board of the main article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Knowledge_Worker_of_Korea&action=edit&redlink=1) Thanks :) Mailzzang+aus (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel this article includes appropriate references, as I am a Korean language student. May I ask when is the discussion due day? 131.217.255.209 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As I guessed, this article should be kept for the aforementioned reasons Mailzzang+aus (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sources are not first class because they are not independent, but I do not share the nominator's notability concerns. A title that 3,000 (out of 50 Mio) citizens hold, where the Ministry keeps a separate database to list them, and that warrants a conferment ceremony, is probably notable. --Pgallert (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2013 (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.