Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazing in the Korean military

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. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazing in the Korean military

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be almost entirely Original research, the few sources seem to be about specific incidents, not the content of the article Jac16888 ^Talk 09:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the current content is problematic, the topic is clearly notable. Searching for the title of the article [1] produces lots of useful sources, not least of which are [2], and [3]. Moving the article to something like Bullying in the Korean military would better capture the issues. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Nick-D. 'Hazing' is actually commonly used for these kind of occurrences. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as topic is notable. lovkal (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as the topic is common enough to warrant its own page. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject seems notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the issue here, nor is it the only reason for deleting something. This article is almost entirely original research, it reads as though it was written based on personal experience. Perhaps an article could be written on this subject, but I don't see that it would or could contain any of the content currently on the page. It's all very well to advocate we "Keep and cleanup" but unless that happens, which it hasn't so far, all that happens is a bad article gets to stay--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are entirely surmountable problems, and while it may be a long time before anyone improves the article, it can still provide some readers with just what they're looking for. Deletion is not cleanup. Deleting the article will prevent an article ever being created on the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I disagree completely. No original research is a fundamental policy for a reason, somebodies own opinions and views, entirely unsourced, are not remotely beneficial to the project and the way to surmount the problem of original research is to remove it - remove the OR from this article and you have virtually no article. People are more likely to write a decent article if they see a subject missing than they are to try rewrite a bad article. Also Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup is just an essay, as is Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, neither is a catch-all.--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My initial opinion was to keep the article, however after reading Jac16888's arguments I support deletion. lovkal (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems notable. Hwimale (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2018 (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.