Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goguryeo-China wars (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I note however that these issues are part of an ongoing dispute presently being mediated - Requests for mediation/Goguryeo. This decision should probably be revisited as part of that mediation and I suggest these issues are best resolved within the context of those mediation proceedings. Max S em 07:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo-China wars (2nd nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Comments from previous discussion did not address the real problem with this article and should be considered irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The issue wasn't about "renaming" the article as the keep votes conveniently dismissed. See old discussion.

The real issue is that the so termed "Gogureyo-China Wars" is not a single series of wars and the individual wars listed in this article have separate articles and so there is absolutely no encyclopedic need to establish a combination article such as this one. They were completely separate wars over a span of more than 600 years involving many different polities and ethnicities. Any attempt here to classify these very separate wars into the "Goguryeo-China Wars" is original research, anachronistic and a hoax and should not be acceptable in Wikipedia. The combatants and casualties template on the top right further adds to the overall ridiculousness and patent nonsense of this article.

The suggestion here is that this combination article "Goguryeo-China wars" should be deleted, as such a combination is OR. In its place the separate articles of the separate wars should remain: Goguryeo-Han Wars; Goguryeo-Yan War, Goguryeo-Sui wars; and Goguryeo-Tang Wars.

--Naus 22:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This AFD was incomplete. I've completed the nomination and placed it on today's page. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Speedy keep and discuss move/merge to Military history of Goguryeo. -- Visviva 01:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Revised per WP:CSK. Clearly the nominator is not the only proponent of deletion.  -- Visviva 05:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The reasons user:Naus have given do not meet the criteria for deletion. Calling the article as original research, hoax, and ridiculous simply shows how Naus wants it his way, which is POV. If you think that the word "Chinese" "weakens" the Chinese political position on Goguryeo, you are wrong, because this is the english Wikipedia and it is not a problem to english readers. Good friend100 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Close. AfD is not the place to take content disputes. -- Charlene 03:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. This article is just a combination of unrelated wars throughout Goguryeo's history.  All the content of this article should be moved to Military history of Goguryeo where it belongs or to the specific wars: Goguryeo-Han Wars; Goguryeo-Yan War, Goguryeo-Sui wars; and Goguryeo-Tang Wars. --JakeLM 03:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't transfer information and then delete the article from which it was taken, that violates the GFDL. Also, if you are seriously proposing speedy deletion, please explain which of the WP:CSD criteria applies here. -- Visviva 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If a deletion is out of the question, what's the point of further discussing this matter other than settling whether the article should stay where it is or be moved (and expanded) to Military history of Goguryeo, which probably demands a separate discussion at Requested moves? AFAICS this discussion can be closed. Wikipeditor 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Per above, a rehash of existing non-related articles. Assault11 04:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Split or rename Goguryeo-China wars implyed that Goguryeo is not of China,which was controversial.The Goguryeo is seen by many as chinese kindom,how can a chinese kindom to be equal with China?The title may further give others impression Goguryeo isn't of China.--Ksyrie 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note, several of the articles referenced by JakeLM above are very recent creations, and appear to have been simply copied from Goguryeo-China wars. There's nothing wrong with this, but it does mean that this article can't be deleted unless those articles are also deleted, per the GFDL.  -- Visviva 05:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not convinced that this is the right forum for dealing with this. However I think a move to Military history of Goguryeo would be the best proposal and the creation of seperate articles for the wars as and where there is enough verifiable information to justify a seperate article. Davewild 08:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article cannot be moved, split, or deleted simply because of the wish of a few POV editors. I don't think calling this article and its related articles "ultranationalist Korean crap" is a good reason. Good friend100 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Reasons cited for this are not grounds for deletion. similar combination articles exist - Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars (one of several examples), covers completely separate wars of a span of 700 years.  Classifying such articles as  original research, anachronistic and a hoax is inaccurate and appears to be sour grapes over the previous failure to delete the article. Edward321 18:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for the reasons I gave before. Carlossuarez46 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - While I know nothing of the subject, the article looks genuine. The present title is perhaps unsatisfactory, and it might be split.  The article at present lacks sources, but it may be that English language sources are hard to find.  However none of this merits outright deletion of the content.  Peterkingiron 00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: The exact content is available in other articles. There is no historical reason to combine the articles together into Goguryeo-China wars as the wars mentioned were completely separate and unrelated.  The only reason for doing this is from the perspective of Korean ultranationalistic agenda and thus highly controversial.  There is also the controversy of whether Goguryeo is a Chinese polity or not.  If Goguryeo is interpreted as also a Chinese polity (which many Chinese interpret as), then this article becomes patent nonsense, as it becomes effectively China-China wars.  --JakeLM 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Duplicate articles with identical content are highly undesirable, as the articles tend to get altered so as to go in separate ways, even ending off contradicting each other. I see no objection to the proposed "Military History ..." title.  I have not checked whether the content is identical, but would see no objection to converting this to a disambiguation page, or perhaps a little more.  I now understand the politically charged nature of the subject of Goguryeo, which I had not appreciated.  This seems to involve latent potential territorial demands, but the boundaries of a former state ought not affect modern political realities.  What I am concerned about is that the content of the article should survive in some form, not whether the present article should remain.  Peterkingiron 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not think this article will be completely deleted. Good friend100 20:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Military history of Goguryeo. John Vandenberg 06:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.