Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal

Uriginal

This is basically an exercise in quote-hunting: find a place where some Korean (any Korean or Korean-related group, not necessarily a notable one) made some laughable claim that X is of Korean origin, and add it to the list. The sources are mostly random websites; even the ones which are from reliable sources like newspapers turn out to be opinion pieces or quotes, not newspapers themselves claiming these things as facts. In short, a list of indiscriminate information bordering on WP:OR. Also, the title itself is a neologism with only a few hundred GHits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). But even moving it to a real title like "List of things which Koreans claim to have invented" wouldn't save it. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inflammatory neologism, original research, lacks: clearly defined scope, reliable sources, criteria for inclusion. If these claims were being made by other than random netizens, or if there were some cohesion other than "things Koreans have claimed," I could see a case being made for keeping it. -- Visviva 08:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and OR. The intro section even states "This term is rarely used outside Wikipedia". Pax:Vobiscum 08:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While Google shows almost no hits for "우리지널"/"우리지날," "ウリジナル" gets 30,300, many of which do seem to pertain to this concept. So I guess we know where this comes from. -- Visviva 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... heh. Maybe the list could be repurposed as "things some Korean people have said that made some Japanese people angry." But it would still fail WP:NOT by a mile.-- Visviva 08:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, unflattering neologisms coined by nationalities to refer to themselves are comparatively rare; these days, most are coined by internet users in neighbouring countries. So there's no real surprise here that 2ch makes up more than 10% of all GHits for this term. [1] cab 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless OR/NEO. Surely everyone recognizes that all these things were inwented by the Russians anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete or rename it.There are really some koreans who claims such finding,but mostly not an academic background.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~nonsense, really.~~ As it was felt that my original vote reasoning was incorrect, I'll expound a bit: basically, we have a set of claims where one side says it's Japanese, and the other says it's Korean. Wikipedia is NOT a place for debate. MSJapan 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain original research or unverified claims. Every example has its own source and all of them are from some official websites or Korean newspapers, the official website of "United States Yudo Association", the official website of "Iowa University Kumdo Club", the official website of "Chosun Ilbo" etc. They are all reliable sources. They are no "minor or little significant website." Do you call "Chosun ilbo" minor?

The uriginal phenomenon is well-known especially in Japan. Even All Japan Kendo Federation([2]) and Kodokan [3] officially refer to it. It is true that the name "Uriginal" is not common outside Japan but it is not something made by either minority ultra-nationalist groups or a very specific group. If they were, AJKF and Kodokan would have ignored them. But this is one of Japanese-Korean disputes, which is so big a phenomenon that they couldn't ignore. (Actually, uriginal is also known as "Korean-Original theory", which is the most common name in Japan[4].

You can find a lot of books which refers to this issue. The most famous one is Manga Kenkanryu. Others include Korea vs Japan: World of fictional history (published by Shogakukan), Korean's Fictional History (also published by Shogakukan), Medicine for the Koreans (published by Oakla Publisher), etc... If you look closer, you can understand that this article doesn't contain any original resource.

If the title "Uriginal" is not suitable, why don't we move it to "List of things which Koreans claim to have invented"? I cannot find any problems.

The article only has reliable sources such as Chosun Ilbo, is not neologism (Google shows 29,500 hits for "ウリジナル" [5]) and does not contain original research or unverified claims. In short, there's no reason to delete this article.--Michael Friedrich 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly call the Japanese' version of Chosun Ilbo, which is what's cited in the article, minor. More to the point, none of these sources validate the central claim of the article, which is that "many" Koreans believe these things. The official site of the Podunk Yudo Association may be an excellent source on the views of the Podunk Yudo Association, but it has no status to tell us about anything beyond that; and the viewpoints of obscure civic organizations are not generally of encyclopedic merit. Now, if there had been a systematic poll of the Korean population (South, North, overseas) which showed that a substantial percentage believed these things -- now that would be interesting. But I don't see any evidence of this in the article; it is illuminating that so many of the sources are actually from Japan or China. -- Visviva 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the source is shown for all items, the reason to delete this article as a reason in WP:OR is not found at all.--Panpulha 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the sentence in the first paragraph of WP:NOR: "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." That the material has been (sort of) published is not in dispute; the validity of this synthesis is. -- Visviva 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Heavily POV, largely pointless. Realkyhick 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then rename. For all items sources are shown, while the word ウリジナル seems to be a sort of pun. --Hatukanezumi 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]