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.
Delete Doesn't seem to be much more to say about it other than it didn't happen. No evidence that it was a major scandal or anything. Communities plan and cancel stuff all the time. If a source can be found, maybe this would add a sentence worth of flavour to our mostly-empty Gimje article, but definitely not an article of its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the city article seems fair. With regard to the previous comment, it does exist (or did). There's an item about it part way down this page dated July 24, 2008. this page on the Gunsan Free Trade Zone still refers to it as if it were an active project (but I suspect it's just a stale page) MadScot666 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. Keep the information on Wikipedia. A major public-works project is significant, and the article asserts that construction actually began on this one. Fg2 (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The city article would be a good place to merge in a note about the aborted plans to build the Gimje Airport. I did a Google search. Of course one wouldn't expect much to be in English about a non-English-speaking country. Even so, the search found various terse mentions on construction company sites about significant airport construction about to begin and some blog posts in June and July 2008 saying it was cancelled. It's enough info to conclude that the story is over and there won't be more sources. (If I had found reliable sources, I'd have added them.) It isn't enough to qualify for WP:RS as it is. So it must go. Ikluft (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, planned, land bought and contractor chosen is bound to have created sufficient media attention to generate amble sources (probably in Korean though). I would like to see some sources in the article to verify the claims—on the other hand being unsourced is not a criteria for deletion. Arsenikk(talk)19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being unsourced is enough grounds for deletion. No sources confirms non notability. The creator of the article even notified me that he doesn't think it's notable. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author is the only one who has added any content. (One other editor added a category and an unref tag. And a bot dated the tag.) So the article would qualify for speedy deletion if the author requests it. A ((db-author)) tag in the article by the author or a deletion request posted here is all it would take. Ikluft (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This article still contain little sourced information. There is now only one reliable source, which still fails WP:RS. The other keep votes are based off of personal opinions and not off of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (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.