Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Romanization of Korean


 * 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

New Romanization of Korean

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've declined a speedy for blatant hoax as it isn't 'blatant'. There is dispute about whether or not this is a notable topic, or original research, or hoax, so I am bringing it to AfD. Peridon (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:MADEUP. So far Roe.ese has refused to provide any reliable sources - see Talk:New_Romanization_of_Korean and . We should give him a few more days. If he still won't respond, it's safe to say that that romanization is his original research, and needs to be deleted. Peter238 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jkrdsr (likely Roe.ese's sockpuppet) has just added some citations to the article. The site (lingint.com) is a "romanizator". I wonder if the whole article "New Romanization of Korean" is not just an advertisement for that site. Peter238 (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the earliest account is Jkrdsr - back to 2007. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I should've said "Roe.ese's sockmaster". Thanks. Peter238 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its corresponding article in Korean Wikipedia(ko:정형표기법) has been deleted for WP:OR. Bluemersen (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OR if we're being nice, WP:MADEUP if we're not. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Linguistics articles are hard to assess; I was going to vote "weak keep" as marginally meeting WP:GNG, but its deletion from the Korean WP as OR clinches it for me.  Mini  apolis  23:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources turn up. The sourcing in the article is deceptive — the first four out of five footnotes look ok, but they are about other more notable transliteration schemes or Korean language more generally, not about this scheme. The fifth is the only one actually about the subject, it is placed in a way that doesn't actually use it to source anything, and it's an unreliable primary website. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Deletion As I nominated the article as Db-hoax, there Is no academic source supporting this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk)
 * Delete - There are insufficient sources and none to be found. Everything relates to Revised Romanization of Korean. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: We now have one more reason to remove this article. We sort of have a proof that that article is indeed an advertisement. We've just learnt that one of Jkrdsr sockpuppets is Linguisticint, who was banned on 5 May for having a surname and user page that was unambiguously an advertisement. And what is the only 'non-deceptive' (but still not reliable) source in 'New Romanization of Korean'? Nothing other than LingInt. It's just another attempt at promoting his website. Peter238 (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2015 (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.