Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in South 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 SNOW Keep as a week has shown to suggest this can be kept as its own article and there are no outstandingly large delete votes, aside from an apparent IP's Delete, aside from the newest one but even then, the other votes noticeably suggest Keep outweigh the one Delete; the only other comment was from a now-kicked user (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Racism in South Korea

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this article is only original research. The article cites news reports or blog articles and tries to list them to prove racism in Korea. However, single cases like this happen in every country. A topic like this actually needs mainly journal papers as source with empirical research. Moreover, the article focuses very strongly on cases of individuals: " Hwang Min-woo, a South Korean dancer, was bullied by his fellow students at his school due to his having a Vietnamese mother." This sentence is there just without any context. However, if the article would list all those individual cases, every racism article on wikipedia would be bigger then the remaining wikipedia. And, as I said before, the full article is original research instead of showing the the current state of racism in Korea from a neutral point of view by citing empirical literature. --Christian140 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, there are academic refs . The article may have some problems, but by no means it is anywhere near WP:TNTable. The nominator would be advised instead to add copyediting tags such as dubious or cite and discusses particular problematic passages at talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Seems a bit too far-fetched to call the whole article original research. It could be better, but I have seen worse. Ceosad (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Parts of the article can be improved, but overall the article is not that bad. The topic is notable in any case. The problem seems to me that most of the references are newspaper reports (where journals would be preferred). That can be improved though. WP:TNT is not required here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, and problems can be addressed without deleting the whole article. Random86 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and what the article does is just listing news reports of cases and claims of racism in Korea. --Christian140 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – This is a very notable topic. All the present issues can be brought up on the talk page or otherwise amended. Dustin  ( talk ) 03:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Move - Move to Ethnic issues in South Korea like all other countries like China, Japan, Taiwan etc. Racism simply isn't a major issue in South Korea because non-Koreans comprise less than 2% of the population. Inevitably, much of it is going to be news reports about petty racist behavior from individuals and that provides a misleading idea about the situation there. Also, all tabloid newspaper articles needs to be removed for this reason. Cleftetus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)  (note: Cleftetus is an indef blocked sock puppet, the master account has a history of nationalistic, pro-Korean edits)
 * Sounds good. There is also the article Korean ethnic nationalism which recently had the same main author as Racism in South Korea. --Christian140 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Article name is now in line with Ethnic issues in China and Ethnic issues in Japan, countries that are also virtually ethnically homogeneous like South Korea. This should help the article focus on the real historically significant issues and not on reporting tabloid newspaper articles about every individual's petty racist behaviors, which is not what Wikipedia is about - WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Cleftetus (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * An admin still needs to move the page. "Issues" should not be capitalized. Random86 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Racism isn't a major issue because non-Koreans comprise less than 2% of the population" – what a revealing sentence… --PanchoS (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Piotrus and Lemongirl942. Yes, it could be made much better by adding more academic material, but there's no reason to start from the beginning - we're certainly not in TNT area here. There are some concerning POV issues and dubious parts (example #1, example #2, example #3), and I would be happy to help with copyediting and other improvements. GABgab 15:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has a long history of vandalism by sockpuppets attempting to whitewash the entire situation. Cleftetus has been indef blocked for being one of those socks. I have moved the article back to it's original location. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , User Spacecowboy420 just reverted Cleftetus' edits since he was blocked for being a sockpuppet. Nevertheless, his "set back" to the time before the edits was improving the article. Please look into this situation again. Questionable edit. He even removed teh link to this discussion. --Christian140 (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is related to if the article should be deleted or not. If you wish to improve the article, I suggest that you go to the talk page, and make yourself aware of the current state of consensus regarding the article. Oh. You're also subject to a sock puppet report, Christian. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I already saw that and commented on that and I already mentioned before what is wrong with the article on the talk page. Morever, User GAB for example approved on the changed article, which is clearly better. And most users here said the article has problems. The edits by Cleftetus and GAB were improving the article a lot. --Christian140 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly better? Nice to see that you are the final word on what does and does not make an improvement. Who needs consensus, when all we have to do is wait for you to say "it's clearly better"?
 * It's also nice to see you value the edits of a indef blocked, nationalistic sockpuppet, more than editors who actually try to gain consensus. Good Job, Christian! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did nothing than wait here for a consensus. You just removed the link to this discussion here, which is clearly vandalism. You just decided on your behalf that the old version is better instead of discussing it here further. Insteas of removing everything, you could have disagreed here with the changes or at least on the discussion page of the article. --Christian140 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Christian, let's be specific. Which parts of the indef blocked, nationalist sockpuppet, Ceeftetus' edits did you consider to improve the article a lot? Was it that foreigners all come to Korea, because they are poor and Korea is rich? Was it the content discussing that Koreans all speak English very well, but foreigners can't learn Korean? Was it the content that talked about " People who are poor, uneducated, lazy, smell or have a poor sense of fashion" in regards to foreigners? Or was it the content that talked about lots of foreigners having AIDS/HIV? Which one of those was responsible for "improving the article a lot" ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To my shame, I have to say that you have a point here. Unfortunately, I looked over the "edited" version only very briefly and it looked already better by just reading the "headlines" and I thought no edit could make it worse. Since user Cleftetus left a comment on my user page, that he reverted the article to the time before the mess started, I believed it in good faith. Yes, here I did something I should not do. I claimed it to be better even without having a closer look into it. I agree. The other version has as many issues as this version and pointing out that the Korean alphabet is easy to learn and takes only one hour is everything but neutral. Besides all the other irrelevant or non neutral statements in the article. Therefore, because feeling so ashamed, I will leave this discussion completely. --Christian140 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been restored to the pre-sock state, and Christian140 apologized for the mistake. I hope that we've resolved this. GABgab 12:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Christian - I reverted to an edit previous to the edits of a confirmed sockpuppet, as per wikipedia guidelines. The link to this discussion being removed was an unfortunate side effect, but no big deal. There was already consensus on that article. Editors worked hard for consensus, while having to deal with numerous sock puppets such as cleftetus. The consensus on this discussion is to KEEP the article. The content has already won consensus. The move never had consensus, and was reverted because it was performed by a sockpuppet. (as well as lacking consensus) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleftetus' edit to Korean ethnic nationalism should be rolled back as well. Random86 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems all good now. I think whatever problems need to be fixed, can be fixed on the article talk page. (and on SPI when the socks return) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see also my current move request at Talk:Ethnic issues in China. --PanchoS (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly a relevant, encyclopedic topic. Quite a bit one-sided now, but remaining problems have to be solved by reasonable editing, introduction of additional WP:RS and discussion of controversial aspects on the talk page. However, the introductory sentence is clearly too loud, given it is not sufficiently backed by WP:RS.
 * Delete. Korea is unfairly singled out for anti-racism propaganda. Racism exists everywhere but at least there have been no race riots in Korea.  The tone of the article is not neutral.  Wikipedia is not a social activism and awareness site.  It is supposed to be a factual presentation of a topic.  Individual stories and articles cannot be used to depict an entire people.  Delete or else severely change content.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.112.24 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2016 (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.