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 delete. Cabayi (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korea origin theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I see this article unintentionally today, and notice that this article is full of distortion on Korea and missing link. For instance, This article describe that Korean people pretend to origin of airplane, named after Bicha (비차). Although it is just unofficial history, this article distort as if all Korean (or government) claim this myth as history. Also, there is a lot of offensive examples about "fake Korean origin" with missing or partial reference. It is too malicious to need to deletion. Reiro (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, This article is an inevitable wreck that attempts to piece controversy together in a cluster of nationalist trolls linking unrelated historical debates together. However, I do not think it is more desirable to maintain the page toward that coincidence of this article will be re-written by someone who is not personally involved in the argument. Any new version should be deleted before being inserted into the main space. TruthAndSalt (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who else is having flashbacks to the AREX line out of Incheon with TV screens blasting "DOKTO NOT JAPAN" commercials? Just me? Indiscriminate list serving a controversial topic made with nationalist fervor. It doesn't even talk about the 'origin theory' itself; proponents, philosophy, why it started- those basic components for any such article. Estheim (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with other editors. Its just a list, doesn't even talk about the origin and a concept and as a thing that must have been developed by proponents, and opposed by critics. Doesn't meet the basic threshold of an encyclopedia article. --haha169 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve Replace with a translation that synthesizes the Japanese and Chinese versions of the article. Per WP:ARTN and WP:NPOSSIBLE, a subject remains notable even if the article is poorly written and doesn't cite the right sources. While the English version of this article fails to cite the secondary sources that would be needed to justify a specific article on the Korea origin theory, as noted by TruthAndSalt, the Japanese version does. While the English version fails to provide any sort of historical context or explanation, as noted by Estheim and Haha169, the Japanese version does. Thus, per WP:ATD, this article must be improved rather than discarded. EDIT: I agree that this article also flunks POV guidelines, but that's also not a valid reason for deletion per WP:ATD. Jancarcu (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the Japanese article on the Korea origin theory itself, Jp-Wiki also has a very extensive list article on the Korea origin theory. Thus, at this point, the idea that the article is in principle unsalvageable is untenable per WP:ATD, since this points to an abundance of WP:RS to choose from. Jancarcu (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The Zh-Wiki version appears to be less well sourced than the Jp-Wiki version.Jancarcu (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it appears that both sides of this deletion discussion have mostly consisted of people interested in Asian politics; it might be better to try to get input from the broader Wikipedia community, if everybody is fine with it so that it's not WP:FORUMSHOPPINGJancarcu (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This document contains no significant academic information, and seems like it is directed against the Koreans. Whoever wrote this document is trying to make groundless claims on Korean Nationalism, and the document is biased in all ways. I don't see any hopes of fixing this document because most, if not all theories of Korean origins are made up, or seriously exaggerated. It is also good to keep in mind that there is close to no document that describes similar occurrences in OTHER COUNTRIES. Such a document will only bring anti-Korean sentiment from exaggerated events. Takipoint123 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with Jancuru's ideas on fixing the document. Barely any document in the English Wikipedia deals with origin theories of other countries. The Jp-Wiki document is also quite biased in fairness, it does not state that most Koreans are disinterested and does not believe most of these theories. Also, keeping this document will only result in inaccurate information from nationalist anti-Korean trolls; therefore any meaningful changes will return to the inaccurate state as it is right now.Takipoint123 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 Febuary 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Many of the sources seem unreliable, blogs, forum posts, clickbait 'news' sites etc. If these were removed, would the subject have enough RS to remain notable? Keeping in mind that disputes about the origin of things are common among many countries. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that some entries have a shred of truth that are sometimes argued in serious academia, which may have been inflated by Korean nationalists, then used as evidence of widespread belief by Japanese/Chinese nationalists:

• The concept of katakana and manyo'gana may have been inspired by annotations in earlier Korean texts
• Some Japanese emperors may have partial Korean ancestry
• Some Japanese cultural items may have Korean influence
• The Hongshan culture and Liao river civilization may have included proto-Korean peoples

Things like that should be added to the articles of each item respectively, provided a good source is available. The question here is whether or not the exaggerations of a small number of Korean nationalists is notable enough for its own article. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 22:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if there are sources covering either how Korean nationalists do this, or Chinese/Japanese publications inaccurately claim it, then that could also be the basis of a different type of article on the topic. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is an interesting fact. Someone says the Japanese imperial ancestor, Kammu, was from a Korean kingdom; The man said such thing is Akihito, the former Japanese emperor[1]. Surely, that sentence has been criticized, and I also think it is just his personal opinion. However, at least, it is ultimately true that he is not Korean nationalist.

And I am from South Korea, but I have never been heard that The Hongshan culture and Liao river civilization may have included proto-Korean peoples (well, it is used to just internet joking such as The Finno-Korean Hyperwar). But no major Korean officer or organization claimed that such things).

In short, this article is overrating some of fringe theories. --Reiro (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article does need some work to bring it up to standards but i think it is salvageble 新世界へ (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the thing is there is no point in this article. Even if it is fixed it does not bring any academic value to the Wikipedia community and only proof of anti-Korean sentiment. Now, if we pose the question: Are these sorts of events happen across the world? Yes, in fact, China, Japan, and even western countries are continually fighting over origins. However, none of these are on Wikipedia, because it is too controversial and hard to keep NPOV and quickly become biased and inaccurate. This article will pretty much be a trash can for whatever grudge people hold on Korea, and you can clearly tell from the serious problems in the article. Upon inspection of the recent edits of the person who made this document, you can clearly tell that they are against Korea. Takipoint123 (talk • contribs) 7:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete in absence of at least a couple reliable sources that discuss the entire question (and even then the entries would need extensive expurgation, from what I am seeing). Without works to provide an overview and back up the notion that this is a notable and sufficiently-covered concept, this is a big pile of WP:SYNTH. Looks like the jaWP version has that problem too - lots of scattered examples of widely varying quality, with no unifying framework. (Have a look at the examples on Historical negationism, which all appear to have received the required kind of coverage.) The current approach is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and at the very least we should not keep it in mainspace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 18 February 2021 (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.