Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang (Korean)

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 of the debate was no consensus. There are six votes to delete, two of which were cast before the article was significantly modified, but which give no alternate instructions (e.g. they do not say delete unless...); there are three votes to keep, plus Uncle G's fairly lengthy discussion noting the modification, which, in combination with his labor in expansion of the article, projects a desire that the article be kept. Counting that as a vote to keep makes it 6-4, ergo, no consensus for deletion. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 04:49 (UTC)

[edit] Bang (Korean)

I think the decision to Transwiki this to Wiktionary was a good one. Bang, by itself, is no more encyclopedia-worthy than any other syllable in the Korean language. Therefore, delete. Visviva 03:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dictdef. `It's all about the wiktionary, baby. -- Jonel | Speak 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable type of space used for recreation with no real equivalent in English. Kappa 05:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. How can someone want to keep it after transwiki? I don't see a discussion here or a cross-cultural pollination that needs explanation. Geogre 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Once one realizes that, and sees that Wiktionary already has 房, one can get away from fixating upon translating a Korean word (including losing that ghastly {{koreanname noimage}} template, whose task Wiktionary does a far superior job of performing here) and can uncover a potential encyclopaedia article that was hidden beneath the Lost Lexicography. Modified article. See what you think now. Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • I still think it's mostly a dictdef/usage guide, but I'm going to change my vote to Abstain because it's borderline. -- Jonel | Speak 18:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry you don't like the Koreanname templates, Uncle G. If you would like to propose an alternative, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean). -- Visviva 07:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is just an essay about the evolution of a word. That makes it a dicdef padded out with linguistic speculation. I'd change my vote if somebody added material indicating this was an interesting Korean cultural phenomenon. ----Isaac R 02:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Although UncleG has done an admirable job of filling this article out, I still don't think it merits inclusion (and I say this as an avowed inclusionist). "Bang" really does just mean "room" or "rooms"... the only thing that is distinctive about it are its collocational properties. The different kinds of bang -- sarangbang, noraebang, PC-bang, DVD-bang &c. -- are distinctive cultural phenomena that do merit their own encyclopedia articles. Each such article might reasonably mention the composition of the word from bang. But bang itself is no more distinctive than any other random Korean affix. -- Visviva 05:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Concur with above. --Scimitar 19:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)

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.