From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The Fixed Future

The Fixed Future (  | 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)

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK: unable to find significant coverage in either English or Korean. Seems to have been written mostly by the author. Ploni ( talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • My flagging of a possible COI was from the similarity of the main contributor's account name ( User:Chaeyoung907) and the author of the book (Cho Young-tae). That said, if this was a student project then it seems very unlikely. – Ploni ( talk) 21:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Indeed. Despite a similar name, I can assure you that my student was not the book author :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While the article warrants some copyediting tags (for language and style), it passes WP:GNG. RS coverage of the book includes a review in major Korean newspaper ( Kyunghyang Shinmun), and a review by an NGO ( [1]). I am unsure if [2] is a reliable source, and I am having trouble verifying some other sources (MT from Korean to English is still meh), but I think the coverage found by the students show that minimum requirements for GNG/NBOOK (which I interpret as at least two reviews in reliable, independent sources) is met. The odds are there is more but students failed to find it (Korean academic reviews), so a Korean speaker may be able to help us more here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think I would need to have a further look at the refs, but just looking quickly, I don't think there's much COI here. It's poorly written, and needs c/e, but I don't think it's ad like. VickKiang ( talk) 03:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:23, 25 July 2022 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The Fixed Future

The Fixed Future (  | 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)

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK: unable to find significant coverage in either English or Korean. Seems to have been written mostly by the author. Ploni ( talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • My flagging of a possible COI was from the similarity of the main contributor's account name ( User:Chaeyoung907) and the author of the book (Cho Young-tae). That said, if this was a student project then it seems very unlikely. – Ploni ( talk) 21:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Indeed. Despite a similar name, I can assure you that my student was not the book author :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While the article warrants some copyediting tags (for language and style), it passes WP:GNG. RS coverage of the book includes a review in major Korean newspaper ( Kyunghyang Shinmun), and a review by an NGO ( [1]). I am unsure if [2] is a reliable source, and I am having trouble verifying some other sources (MT from Korean to English is still meh), but I think the coverage found by the students show that minimum requirements for GNG/NBOOK (which I interpret as at least two reviews in reliable, independent sources) is met. The odds are there is more but students failed to find it (Korean academic reviews), so a Korean speaker may be able to help us more here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think I would need to have a further look at the refs, but just looking quickly, I don't think there's much COI here. It's poorly written, and needs c/e, but I don't think it's ad like. VickKiang ( talk) 03:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:23, 25 July 2022 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook