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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Booyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No sources found to indicate it passes WP:GNG. Project seems to have abandoned as far as I can tell. Ko.wiki article is even shorter than ours and has no refs, so we can't use it to help ref our article. Ineligible for PROD as was AfD'd in 2005; that debate ended in no consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 21:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It was non-notable in 2005 and is still non-notable. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete keep arguments in prior AfD were specious. Clearly does not meet GNG. Governments stick there fingers into many pies. This pie is just not notable.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2017 (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.