abstract
| - basically unintelligible, at best it seems to be some sort of dicdef, the various provided "sources" just seem to include the word as opposed to being about it Jac16888 Talk 11:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Proper spelling is yeong-gam. Page should be edited by bilingual speaker of Korean and English. (영감 is correct) Bleakgh (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I found 영감 in Joseon, so probably the page Yeong-gam is unnecessary, although it would be nice to add 영감 to Wiktionary. Bleakgh (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete. This is basically a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this is a honorific, I'd expect it to be covered in Korean honorifics, although I don't see it mentioned there. But an article about a foreign-language honorific that is written in casual, ungrammatical English is of no use to English-speaking readers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep. not. there word is for korean historical and traditionally word and the old man's nickname, it's widely used. it word was used more than Approximately 1,000 years. -- Hotsover (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* but reported in several korean news and newspapers. -- Hotsover (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* [1], [2], [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotsover (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* I don't understand what those sources have to do with this article. When I run them through an automated translation, they appear to be searches for the Korean words for "inspiration" and/or "three products". This AfD is supposed to be about the word "younggam" as a title for old men. Even if all the results in the search were mistranslated and should have said "elderly man" instead of "inspiration", that would just show use of the word; it wouldn't show discussion of the word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
|