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 delete.
Davewild (
talk) 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I've declined a speedy for blatant hoax as it isn't 'blatant'. There is dispute about whether or not this is a notable topic, or original research, or hoax, so I am bringing it to AfD.
Peridon (
talk) 12:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:MADEUP. So far Roe.ese has refused to provide any reliable sources - see
Talk:New_Romanization_of_Korean and
[1]. We should give him a few more days. If he still won't respond, it's safe to say that that romanization is his
original research, and needs to be deleted.
Peter238 (
talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Jkrdsr (likely
Roe.ese's sockpuppet) has just added some citations to the article. The site (lingint.com) is a "romanizator". I wonder if the whole article "New Romanization of Korean" is not just an advertisement for that site.
Peter238 (
talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
As I see it, the earliest account is Jkrdsr - back to 2007.
Peridon (
talk) 19:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Right, I should've said "Roe.ese's sockmaster". Thanks.
Peter238 (
talk) 11:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: Its corresponding article in Korean Wikipedia(
ko:정형표기법) has been deleted for
WP:OR.
Bluemersen (
talk) 03:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Linguistics articles are hard to assess; I was going to vote "weak keep" as marginally meeting
WP:GNG, but its deletion from the Korean WP as OR clinches it for me.
Miniapolis 23:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete unless reliable sources turn up. The sourcing in the article is deceptive — the first four out of five footnotes look ok, but they are about other more notable transliteration schemes or Korean language more generally, not about this scheme. The fifth is the only one actually about the subject, it is placed in a way that doesn't actually use it to source anything, and it's an unreliable primary website. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: We now have one more reason to remove this article. We sort of have a proof that that article is indeed an advertisement. We've
just learnt that one of Jkrdsr sockpuppets is
Linguisticint, who was banned on 5 May for having a surname and user page that was unambiguously an advertisement. And what is the only 'non-deceptive' (but still not reliable) source in 'New Romanization of Korean'? Nothing other than
LingInt. It's just another attempt at promoting his website.
Peter238 (
talk) 16:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
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.
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 delete.
Davewild (
talk) 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I've declined a speedy for blatant hoax as it isn't 'blatant'. There is dispute about whether or not this is a notable topic, or original research, or hoax, so I am bringing it to AfD.
Peridon (
talk) 12:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:MADEUP. So far Roe.ese has refused to provide any reliable sources - see
Talk:New_Romanization_of_Korean and
[1]. We should give him a few more days. If he still won't respond, it's safe to say that that romanization is his
original research, and needs to be deleted.
Peter238 (
talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Jkrdsr (likely
Roe.ese's sockpuppet) has just added some citations to the article. The site (lingint.com) is a "romanizator". I wonder if the whole article "New Romanization of Korean" is not just an advertisement for that site.
Peter238 (
talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
As I see it, the earliest account is Jkrdsr - back to 2007.
Peridon (
talk) 19:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Right, I should've said "Roe.ese's sockmaster". Thanks.
Peter238 (
talk) 11:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: Its corresponding article in Korean Wikipedia(
ko:정형표기법) has been deleted for
WP:OR.
Bluemersen (
talk) 03:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Linguistics articles are hard to assess; I was going to vote "weak keep" as marginally meeting
WP:GNG, but its deletion from the Korean WP as OR clinches it for me.
Miniapolis 23:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete unless reliable sources turn up. The sourcing in the article is deceptive — the first four out of five footnotes look ok, but they are about other more notable transliteration schemes or Korean language more generally, not about this scheme. The fifth is the only one actually about the subject, it is placed in a way that doesn't actually use it to source anything, and it's an unreliable primary website. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: We now have one more reason to remove this article. We sort of have a proof that that article is indeed an advertisement. We've
just learnt that one of Jkrdsr sockpuppets is
Linguisticint, who was banned on 5 May for having a surname and user page that was unambiguously an advertisement. And what is the only 'non-deceptive' (but still not reliable) source in 'New Romanization of Korean'? Nothing other than
LingInt. It's just another attempt at promoting his website.
Peter238 (
talk) 16:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
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.