Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Seonjeong


 * 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 procedural close per SKCRIT#1 as an invalid AfD nomination. Nominator has not advanced a valid rationale for deletion or related action such as redirection. If someone is repeatedly blanking and redirecting an article against consensus, there are other venues to address such issues. (non-admin closure) firefly  ( t · c ) 09:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Queen Seonjeong

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Strong keep: ( nominator ) She was the chief queen consort of Goryeo Dynasty of Korea. According to Korean absolute monarchy system, the queen is the second highest-rank after the King. The queens were highest-ranking member at the Royal Court (Goryeo's political system was absolute monarchy, higher than today's parliament system, so not to be compared). Very clearly passes WP:NPOL. According to the WP:POLOUTCOMES for Monarchs and nobility, ''There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority.'' The person has received considerable historical coverage from the reliable source National Institute of Korean History. Moreover, she is a major historical figure of nowadays Korea. Biography of her is prescribed to the school by the Education in the Korean history subject as a biographical profile. I know that the articles missing some information. The article need expansion not deletion. IMO, there is no notability problem.

However, there is a dispute that the person is notable for a separate article, or whether the name should be a redirect to the King. I've disputed the change (blank-and-redirect) and an attempt was made to reach a consensus by discussing in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9. My point is the article is notable for an article and should not redirect to Sinjong of Goryeo. But another user favours blank-and-redirect and has no intention of starting an AfD discussion. DR volunteer suggests the best way to resolve this dispute, when the redirect is being used as a back-door deletion, does appear to be a Article for Deletion discussion. VocalIndia (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First, i'm so sorry if there's many wrong and missing info or the others in the articles Queen Seonjeong, but if someone knows about Wiki article rules, may you teach me about that??...so, maybe in my next articles will not out from the rules....btw, i'm really happy because i can get a chance to make Korean royal articles and some of them had been reviewed......thanks you so much for this and for Queen Seonjeong, you can free to delete that article if you feels that's not accordance with the rules. Once more, thx so much and sorry for all of my mistakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningsih ODINN (talk • contribs)
 * You misunderstood me. See your talk page. VocalIndia (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * procedural close without decision . This looks like an abuse of process. AfD is not where one argue about a content dispute, the article talk page is. – robertsky (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you need to learn what is a back-door deletion? We need to discussion for her notability. VocalIndia (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , eh. the process typically goes from redirection -> reversion -> discussion on talk page per WP:BRD. You skipped the D in the process. A redirection is not a backdoor deletion. It is typically done if one feels that the subject is not notable on its own yet but there is still a possibility to exist on its own. As you have demonstrated, you have reverted 's redirection. I suggest that you take a step back, cool yourself down, withdraw this, and discuss this civilly on the article's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I already started the discussion at Talk:Gwi-in Park and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9. I'm very tired now. VocalIndia (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Right. How's those different from this? Why didn't you put this on the article page's talk page as well? and no notifications to the reviewing editor? And don't say that he should be able to see them, and the discussions you have started. Editors can remove the pages from their Watchlist, but cannot avoid notifications. You are tired now? Sure. Take a break. Have a fresh perspective on how to engage others over this and come back later. – robertsky (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again... I putted at Talk:Kim Mun-geun and more. I can't put my explanation to every articles he redirected because I has two arms. I started this discussion for an example for the future. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is his talk page, and as you have used, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility where you can centralise the discussion. the discussion can be a bundled one affecting many articles at once. – robertsky (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. As a Chief Queen or Empress (왕후) and Queen Mother, she would doubtlessly be notable to be kept. Of course, the article is still needing additional reliable citations though. (Actually, almost all Korean queens have had considerable power; such queens have sometimes been referred as the "power behind the throne". Unlike other queens from other parts of the world, queens of Korea had played major roles in the political affairs and cases of succession to the throne.) Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The main argument for notability has been made well by several other users, but just to reiterate: this woman was the queen consort of the ruler of a major historical kingdom. From an East Asian history perspective, she is undoubtedly notable enough for her own article. Topics that are poorly researched by English language studies often lack the number of sources or quantity of information that other pages have, but this is the result of academic bias and the language proficiencies of Wikipedia's users. It does not, therefore, represent a viable basis to question notability, instead (as has been suggested) tagging articles with requests to improve citations, expand the page with text from the non-English article etc, would be more productive. With this in mind, I have now added further reliable citations. Amys eye (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2021 (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.