Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privilege of the predecessors (2nd nomination)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Privilege of the predecessors
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Concerns raised in the previous AfD still seem to be valid; the complete lack of English sources for this subject, along with the highly dubious premise (flagrant corruption at the most basic legal level in an advanced economy), mean that we cannot establish that this is a trustworthy article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - any article that starts with "... it is a well known fact" raises alarm bells. There are no English references and only one non-English reference which looks like some sort of wiki style online encyclopedia, I don;t know, I don't speak/read Korean - in any case it's very unlikely to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability requirements.  In addition, the entire premise of this article seems highly unlikely, so I would want to see some pretty heavy duty sources before I would agree to the article's retention. -  Nick Thorne  talk  13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep First, Naver's online encyclopedia is not user-generated content, but a compilation of various paper encyclopedias, primarily the Doosan Encyclopedia. Thus the inclusion of the topic there is prima facie evidence of notability. If you cannot read Korean, this Hankyoreh editorial from some years ago confirms the outline of the content here, translates it rather clumsily as "allowing privileges associated with one's former post". It's not just a recent news topic-of-the-day, but a continuing issue in the South Korean judicial system which has been discussed repeatedly over the years, including in scholarly journals ; I'm trying to find a paper with an English abstract, to see if we can improve on the title. cab (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article and added various sources to it, including both English and Korean ones. Since there is no particular consensus among English-language writers what to call it (usually something about "special consideration" and "former judges"/"judges-turned-lawyers"), I'd suggest also moving it to Jeon-gwan ye-u (the transcription of the Korean name) as User:Polarpanda recommended at the last AfD. cab (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A listing in one online encyclopedia does not satisfy the notability criteria. Also, your description does not mean that this encyclopedia would clearly satisfy the reliabile source criteria - I think I would want it put up to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard before I would be too happy about using it in the English Wikipedia.  In addition, I have checked the English references recently added and they do not support the primary proposition of the article, but rather refer to peripheral issues.  Their inclusion on particular minor points in the article are fine so far as that goes, but they do not address the primary concern about the lack of sources for the main subject of the article. One could be forgiven for thinking that the purpose of the inclusion of all these suplementary references is to game the system and make it look like the main idea of the article is well sourced when in fact it is not.  Similarly, issues about the name of the article are non-sequitur until we resolve the issue of whether the article should remain in the project at all.  Please keep the discussion on topic. -  Nick Thorne  talk  12:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please, this is not about "gaming the system". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The fact that other encyclopedias (in this case, Doosan and Britannica) choose to write an article about a topic is a pretty good indication that a topic may be appropriate for Wikipedia. Park's paper, in English, devotes a section to the topic, and so I included it primarily because it can aid any reader to verify the basic outline of the article. The various judicial reform proposals discussed in the Korea Times are in fact directly related to the issue of former judges who enter private practise, which is precisely the topic of the article. The Hankook Ilbo, Hankyoreh, and Donga Ilbo articles in Korean are solely about this phenomenon. Dozens more sources are found in Korean in both general-interest national newspapers and legal magazines.


 * And it is a perfectly standard practise in deletion discussions to point out when the name of an article may need to be changed (which also alerts people who just paste the existing title into Google and don't find anything, that they may not be getting the whole picture). So don't accuse me of taking the discussion off topic, and don't make false characterisations of a good-faith effort to use on-topic sources to expand a topic as "gaming the system" because it involves a language you don't read. cab (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You failed to address the point I was making that none of the English references support the basic premise of the article. Even the example you quote in your post above does not go to the nub of the matter.  The premise of the article is not about former judicial officers entering private practice, but rather that these people in some way are given precedence in judicial proceedings in which they are involved.  The references do not support that argument and yes, I do not count references in non-English language.  This is not some non controversial issue, it is a highly charged one, if true, and so in the English Wikipedia it needs to be supported by English references - Korean language sources would be fine as suplemental references, especially if provided with accurate English translations, but they are not enough on their own.  So far there has not been one single English reference included that supports the main premise of the article.  So, I do call it gaming the system, because it gives the impression that the article is well referenced when it is not.  If that is not gaming the system then I'd like to know what is.  The article needs to either be appropriately referenced by reliable sources and evidence of its notability provided or else it should be deleted. -  Nick Thorne  talk  12:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Park (2010), as cited, writes in English: Jeon-kwan-ye-woo in effect means that incumbent judges and prosecutors give special consideration to those cases that are handled by jeon-kwan. He goes on for another three hundred words about the phenomenon. And every single time someone tries to insert some clause into WP:N about the language of references, it gets rejected, most recently in late 2009. I am not going to respond any further to your continued sticking your head in the sand and screaming accusations of bad faith. cab (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable to Korean reliable sources = notable. Polarpanda (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Multiple English language sources directly addressing the topic of the article are linked, although technically they're not necessary. This is a very notable topic in Korea.Minnowtaur (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2010 (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.