This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to South Korea. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|South Korea|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to South Korea. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/South Korea/archive

Wadiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Apparently non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP. This page has been deleted as advertising, then recreated and draftified. In-article sources include a Q&A WP:INTERVIEW with an executive (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE; [1]) and a WP:TRIVIALMENTION on an FT list. A scholarly article appears to offer WP:SIGCOV. In my WP:BEFORE search, both under Wadiz and the Hangul 와디즈, I found only WP:ORGTRIV or affiliated sources like press releases. (However, if anyone has examples of additional qualifying coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH please ping me as it's possible I missed something given the language barrier.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Korea. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to find coverage about this company from The Chosun Daily and Fox News. I think thats enough to establish notability. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage in Fox News? No results turn up: [2]. And I have to agree with Oaktree b that Chosun Daily coverage is all WP:ORGTRIV or WP:CHURNALISM regurgitating press releases: [3]. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing found other than articles confirming funding was acquired and PR items. The Fox News item noted above is a RP item and the Chosun articles I pull up are about securing funding, nothing notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: based on discussion below Delete: The persistent deletion/draftifying and then re-creation by an editor who has not responded to the COI warning suggests that attempts to improve the quality of the article will be reverted in favor of the current promotional version. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, I was only able to find two Chosun Daily articles that provide some genuine coverage.[4][5] Additionally, a search for mentions in books led me to this bit from the Routledge Handbook of Korean Business: "In 2021, Wadiz, the largest crowdfunding website surpassed 200 billion KRW. Consequently, the market size may be between 300 billion and 400 billion KRW; however, the scale of securities-type crowdfunding in Korea is relatively modest."[6] Vegantics (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that book is a trivial mention, and the Chosun Daily pieces are both WP:ORGTRIV as routine coverage of the company's capital-raising and financials. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree on the book being a trivial mention, I think that last clause really emphasizes the non-notability of the company. Vegantics (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : There are several scholarly publications that provide significant coverage of Wadiz, mentioning its prominence as the largest crowdfunding platform in South Korea. For example, Hankyung Business Magazine notes that “since its establishment in 2012, the transaction amount has increased by 2.5 times annually, exceeding 840 billion KRW in cumulative transaction brokerage amount as of Q4 2022” (article in Korean). Additionally, peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Global Fashion Marketing and Civil Society and NGO also discuss Wadiz in academic contexts. I believe these sources demonstrate substantial coverage and help establish the company's notability. QuietWikiNinja (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn / Keep. I cannot review the Hankyung Business Magazine article (it looks like WP:ORGTRIV and/or WP:TRADES to me), but the two peer reviewed journals combined with the scholarly source already in the article clear the bar for WP:NCORP. Withdrawing on this basis. Pinging @Oaktree b @Vegantics for their opinion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't open them/need to purchase access. I don't have enough to change my !vote Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. The article in Civil Society and NGO seems to focus more on how nonprofits create crowdfunding initiatives than on Wadiz itself, but that still leaves two scholarly articles with Wadiz as the primary subject. Vegantics (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) nor the specific criteria for political organizations (WP:POLITICALPARTY). The Grand National Unity Party appears to be a minor political entity with minimal lasting impact and lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the references are primary or fail WP:RS. Therefore, I believe this article should be deleted. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very minor non-notable South Korean political party. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is there any reason why this second nomination exists even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand National Unity Party is still open (and is still the nomination the article's AfD notice points to)? If a legitimate comment had not been made here it would have been an easy procedural close. WCQuidditch ✎ 17:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wcquidditch Oh yeah. It was just a mistake on my part to create a second deletion nomination page. It was my first time creating a deletion page. I apologize for my mistake. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ✎ 17:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep – Since there is a duplicated AfD. Svartner (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Violates Wikipedia’s sourcing policies**: This article fails to provide reliable sources and lacks independent sources, violating Wikipedia’s verifiability policy.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article. --Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ✎ 10:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand National Unity Party (2nd nomination), which has attracted a delete !vote, despite this nomination still being open and linked from the article. I note this for the benefit of any potential closing admin and/or relister. (I have no opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ✎ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wcquidditch It was just a mistake on my part to create a second deletion nomination page. It was my first time creating a deletion page. I apologize for my mistake. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a supplement to the reason for deletion, this Wikipedia article has referenced articles and bibliographies, but they are not about the Grand National Unity Party, which is the main topic of the Wikipedia article, but merely about people who appear in the Grand National Unity Party article in the course of discussing it. As such, they do not constitute evidence for the Grand National Unity Party, and there is no mention of the Grand National Unity Party in the article. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic policy of South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced, poorly written seefooddiet (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like an essay. Poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only two sources are for content that can be categorized as trivia. The rest is badly written and some content seems unconnected to the subject. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD participants who do not look for sources themselves are barely doing even a third of a proper job. Three of them together show how few people do this properly. We're supposed to be double-checking, not playing follow-the-leader or looking at bad articles and taking them at face value. This is fairly obviously a stub with clear scope for both cleanup and expansion. We Keep those. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheng, Edmund Li (2022). "Extra-regional players in the Arctic: EU, China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea". Arctic Opportunities and Challenges: China, Russia and the US Cooperation and Competition. Springer Nature. pp. 129–132. ISBN 9789811912467.
  • Leksutina, Yana V.; Zhang, Jian (2022). "Interests of Non-Arctic Asian States in the Region". In Pak, Egor V.; Krivtsov, Artem I.; Zagrebelnaya, Natalia S. (eds.). The Handbook of the Arctic: A Broad and Comprehensive Overview. Springer Nature. pp. 106–107. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-9250-5_6-1. ISBN 9789811692505.
  • Park, Young Kil (2020). "Boosting South Korea in a changing Arctic Council: achievements and challenges". In Woon, Chih Y.; Dodds, Klaus (eds.). 'Observing' the Arctic: Asia in the Arctic Council and Beyond. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 9781839108211.
  • Bennett, Mia M. (2017). "The Maritime Tiger: Exploring South Korea's interests and role in the Arctic". In Sinha, Uttam Kumar; Bekkevold, Jo Inge (eds.). Arctic: Commerce, Governance and Policy. Routledge. ISBN 9781317517504.

Point taken but mind the condescension. seefooddiet (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, SIGCOV of this topic found by Uncle G - it's clearly notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources are trivial to find e.g. [1] 2 3 by just copy-pasting the article title into a search engine, including articles by peer-reviewed scientific journals. It's pretty clear that no BEFORE was done here. Cortador (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agreed with the more recent comments regarding WP:BEFORE being inadequately performed after a google review. The sources that are extant more than meet WP:SIGCOV and the article should be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator; think there's a strong argument for keep. seefooddiet (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage and Ohq is mentioned in passing. No significant achievements in tier-one leagues or tournaments during his career. Yue 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and South Korea. Yue 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 05:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: There is no clear consensus that WP:NSPORT covers esports players and there is much routine coverage per nom. However, the ESPN story [7] and (likely) this Red Bull article [8] supports WP:SPORTCRIT which are reliable per WP:VG/RS. Esports Edition [9], unsure about its reliability. CherryPie94 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that the coverage in those articles (at least the two that are not permanently dead) is significant. The most substantial is the ESPN article, but "a South Korean player is having difficulties adjusting to American life after joining an American team" is hardly the headliner article to establish standalone notability (i.e. apart from NRG Esports). Yue 21:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yue: Understandable, but ESPN also touches on his career. I've also fixed the Red Bull and Esports Edition links. CherryPie94 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Yue here; delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 15:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is ample routine coverage that makes searching for significant coverage difficult, but I agree that the ESPN and Red bull sources don't establish any particular notability. No significant accomplishments on any of the teams he played for. Just another korean import into the north american league of legends league.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Eunwoo
• Miraculous Brothers