Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/hani


 * 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 non-admin closure. This AfD was created out of user Rawhiti25's good-faith attempt to add to the AfD discussion of Chojoongdong; however, his comments were placed here instead of the correct AfD page due to vandalism of the AfD template on the article. I will copy all comments here to the proper page. KuyaBriBri Talk 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For the proper AfD discussion on this article, see Articles for deletion/Chojoongdong. KuyaBriBri Talk 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Chojoongdong

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

This article, which I wrote, has been vandalised. The headings have been changed to nonsense terms so that it is now largely meaningless. Rather than resorting to sabotage, these unregistered users should discuss here any issues they have with the article and justify its deletion. Please indicate exactly which facts you consider to be false. You must also specify what needs to be added.

Maybe through dialogue we can make the article more accurate. If this article ended up being deleted without this kind of information being offered, it would be unfair because no effort has been made to have a proper dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawhiti25 (talk • contribs) 2009/04/30 11:02:00
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is apparently about a  Korean initialism for three major newspapers and their influence.  Lacking context to make much sense out of this, or knowledge of South Korean politics, it is a rather confusing article as it stands.  The current version seems strongly slanted in a hostile direction.  But absolutely no grounds for deleting the article are given here.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 30 April 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.