Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jujaksan

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. Helped by the participants' comments and the fact that the nominator is a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jujaksan

[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)

I can only find the book reference to this article pointing to the mountain. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Normanhunter2 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; There's a surprisingly large amount of writing on it in the Korean language. [1] (The Chosun Ilbo), [2] (Yonhap News Agency), [3] (NewsPim), [4] (Seoul Finance),[5] (Encyclopedia of Korean Local Culture). 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you put there don't meet the significance of Jujaksan being added on article. This does not tell what Jujaksan is about. Something like a history, legacy, or even a sufficient background will achieve its notability here. This also mentions the mountain, but it doesn't state specifically what the mountain is about and it's characteristics, besides people visiting the Korean mountain, which is mainly what the sources are about.

Let me step aside from the rambling for a second here, according to WP:NMAG, it clearly states that there needs to be reliable, independent sources that can fit into the article. Those are good sources for information, but not specific to this article because it doesn't directly state what the mountain is about. Normanhunter2 (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please mind the tone, bordering on preachy. NMAG is about the notability of periodicals and not places/mountains. Some of the sources I gave discuss the mountain itself, not just tourism for it. If not satisfied yet, I'll provide some more.

[6] This source discusses the height, characteristics (number of peaks) of the mountain. [7] This discusses the flora on it. [8] This has an overview description of the mountain and its facilities.

I found these after less than a minute of googling in Korean. I'm assuming you're using machine translation, please give it a few gos in Korean yourself. If there's anything missing I'll do more googling until you're satisfied. I'm very confident, based on the unusual sheer density of the sources on this mountain (Korea has a ton of mountains, many are obscure), that this one is notable. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no history of the mountain, which is what I was concerned about. No photos of the mountain on the article, no history besides characteristics that doesn't give a basic overview of the article itself. It's just baseless sources. I've done a little research on the mountain (I didn't think of googling it in Korean), and I didn't find any history. Have a look at WP:GEONATURAL. One more thing here, those sources you provided again are not precise at all. I read the whole article on the sources you've provided and it only briefly mentions it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(this is 211.43.120.242, posted while on the move) Again, please watch tone. My work is not baseless, you can disagree with it (as I still disagree with you), but I wouldn't describe your opinions that way.

"Baseless" is not a precise word in the context of notability. Description of history is not a required feature for a page's notability, per the exact policy you linked 211.36.142.217 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll see what others think. Normanhunter2 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshed out article more with sources. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the Korean sources provided by 211.43.120.242 that clear WP:NGEO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one challenge has been that there are other English transliterations of the Hangul for Jujaksan ("Chujak-san" and "Shujaku-san" turn up more results in English). I added these to the Wikidata item and linked the Wikipedia entry that exists in Cebuano. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sources found by 211.43.120.242 that shows it meets WP:GEONATURAL. I would also state my concern that the nominator refused to do a proper WP:BEFORE, and didn't even attempt to Google the topic of the article in its native language. B7 clearly states that "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead." The nominator also brings up not having a "History" section and the lack of a non-free use photo as reasons for deletion, neither which are reasons to delete nor grounded in any Wikipedia policies. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2024 (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.