Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sungdong Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering


 * 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. There is consensus here that this topic merits an article, and that end is not served by deleting the existing content. Skomorokh, barbarian  00:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sungdong Shipbuilding &amp; Marine Engineering

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unenyclopedic lists of 'history'; there is absolutely no information to be found about the companies themselves. Would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. Additionally, the only reference is a primary one, and that is definitely not sufficient when the article boasts claims of "ranked x in the world".  GraYoshi2x► talk 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep needs a ton of work, but can be done. 1 NY Times article maritime news and results from all kinds of languages speak of the notability of that company. --President of Internets (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would need a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic - nothing is salvageable in the current article and it would arguably even fail CSD criteria; Additionally, I'm finding it a bit suspicious that some of your first contribs were to AfD discussions.  GraYoshi2x► talk 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * delete. An encyclopaedic article about this company would summarise the history of these (component? predecessor?) organisations in two-three sentences at most and use nothing from this article. The content here belongs on the company website, not Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but start from scratch. This article needs a full rewrite, but there exists enough info MAYBE to make an article. Anyone want to embark on this task? --Triadian (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting from scratch would better be done as a delete-then-recreate situation, to make sure none of the rewritten info is influenced by the prior biased "history" content. You've got my point spot-on; just not the keep part.  GraYoshi2x► talk 02:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added the New York Times reference mentioned by another editor to the page. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious enough that the shipbuilding company exists and is notable, but I don't see how adding a single reference is going to fix everything. It's just covering up (not patching) one of the many, many holes in the wall; doesn't really do much else. I'm more for the "tear down the poorly-made wall and build a better one" type of thing.  GraYoshi2x► talk 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion policy does not support the "tear down the poorly-made wall and build a better one" option ("if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion"). This can be fixed without having to trouble an administrator with pushing the "delete" button, so that is what anyone concerned with the current state of this article should do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't specifically say that. It's actually part of the process of speedy deletion.  GraYoshi2x► talk 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've added a source that shows that this company operates one of the world's top twenty shipyards (as of 2007), and I note that the subject has received coverage in a source that stakes a 275-year reputation on its reliability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (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.