Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate on mixed script and hangeul exclusivity
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. since there is a promise to revise the article to current WIkipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Debate on mixed script and hangeul exclusivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article presently seems like a pure personal essay with many dubious suggestions and claims, and moreover a pure WP:TNT case. I am pretty sure its subject is notable, but it cites almost no sources, and the ones it does cite only tangentially or ephemerally relate to the claims it makes. Since it likely requires some working knowledge of Korean to rewrite this article into any adequate state, and its value is presently purely negative, I suggest deletion for now. Remsense诉 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Korea. Remsense诉 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing how bad it is, I Support deletion, or at the bare minimum, draftification. ''Flux55'' (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Tentative delete. The subject is definitely notable, but the article's bad.
- For notability, if anyone wants I can pull up sources, but hopefully it's evident why changing the standard Korean writing system was seen as a big deal. Debate involved nationalism, Korean independence activism, and practical linguistic concerns. IMO the debate went on for around a century; it only really died down in the 1990s. toobigtokale (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely, and that's why I flinch so much nominating it—but the very fact that it's an important subject means it's a problem that the article is presently in such a state, and I do not have the expertise to properly fix it. Remsense诉 08:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote the article several years ago when I was several years younger and therefore (only slightly) stupider than I am now. I have gained a lot more legitimate expertise on the topic now to probably be able to write a legitimately good article on it and could do so if you would like. The original is very charged and highly opinionated. I agree, is not well suited for this website. Zgw3kszo (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking this cordially, I appreciate the good faith. I would appreciate the opportunity to read another revision of this article. Remsense诉 06:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that. Should I just revise the existing article? Zgw3kszo (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you from me as well for the dialogue and offer to revise. Yes, if there's a guarantee of significant revision, I'm happy to vote keep, and I think others would vote to keep as well. toobigtokale (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would be happy to revise it into a far better article. What kind of timeframe should I aim for? Zgw3kszo (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- As a native Korean speaker, I will try what I can do with it. The article itself is definitely notable, and I think it most of its issues are susceptible to revisions. 00101984hjw (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would be happy to revise it into a far better article. What kind of timeframe should I aim for? Zgw3kszo (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you from me as well for the dialogue and offer to revise. Yes, if there's a guarantee of significant revision, I'm happy to vote keep, and I think others would vote to keep as well. toobigtokale (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear that. Should I just revise the existing article? Zgw3kszo (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking this cordially, I appreciate the good faith. I would appreciate the opportunity to read another revision of this article. Remsense诉 06:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote the article several years ago when I was several years younger and therefore (only slightly) stupider than I am now. I have gained a lot more legitimate expertise on the topic now to probably be able to write a legitimately good article on it and could do so if you would like. The original is very charged and highly opinionated. I agree, is not well suited for this website. Zgw3kszo (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely, and that's why I flinch so much nominating it—but the very fact that it's an important subject means it's a problem that the article is presently in such a state, and I do not have the expertise to properly fix it. Remsense诉 08:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep article. I think the article still has some hopes of being revised into a decent article. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'll try my best to find additional sources and copywrite the text. 00101984hjw (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the edits that are now being done to the article. I often run into relevant information about this debate; I may add my own copyedits and details at a later point too. toobigtokale (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2024 (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.