Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean maritime border incidents


 * 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   wrong forum. AfD is not for proposing mergers, see H:M. This discussion does not result in consensus for a merger.  Sandstein  08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Korean maritime border incidents

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article gives a list of the incidents along the Northern Limit Line, with a little background on each incident and a link to the incidents. Such a list already exists at the Northern Limit Line article, hence I am nominating this article to redirect to Northern Limit Line. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the intention is that the NLL describes the line, its geography and debated status, while this page will detail incidents along the NLL. Mztourist (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Details of the major incidents are given in their own articles. This is essentially a list article which duplicates the list at the Northern Limit Line article. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It only duplicates the list of NLL incidents because you expanded them. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what a merge means. Victor Victoria (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The merge wasn't agreed before you went and did it unilaterally, then when it was reversed you tagged the page for deletion.Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete and merge to NLL Just prior to coming to this AFD discussion, I recently edited the list at Northern Limit Line to provide a short summary of the major battles. I felt constrained to keep the summaries uber-short so as to not overlap Korean maritime border incidents more than it already does.  I think the longer summaries present here could benefit NLL, so if we decide to delete, then we should merge it up to NLL.  Hopefully that does not bloat the NLL section too much.  If the article is kept, what will be our strategy for expanding it in a way that does not overlap NLL too much?  Thoughts? -- Joren (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: One option would be to not list or summarize the incidents at NLL, but make a brief statement and link to KMBI. I think bloating the NLL article is a real possibility otherwise. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2010 Endorse Xyl 54's crisp analysis above
 * Xyl 54 that was what I had done before Victor Victoria merged it with the NLL page. regards Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The chronology of serial events is more than a list of discrete incidents. It is a cumulative narrative.  Each event in the unfolding story is re-told and re-visited during the course of subsequent DPKR-ROK naval clashes.  This is verified by the several images which are now uploaded.  These digitized photos show passers-by watching a large television screen with live broadcast and archived footage from the disputed area south of the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea. --Tenmei 07:06, 28 November 2010 and 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment:This article is already the subject of a merge discussion which currently shows no consensus for the merger, (3 in favour, 4 against); The page has already been unilaterally blanked and redirected by the nominator, with the edit history "This article completely duplicates the other article", while at the same time the information it duplicated was deleted from the NLL article. Also, the nominator has yet to voice an opinion in the merge discussion, so I would regard the current nomination at best as making some kind of point, and at worst tendentious.
 * If a justification for the KMBI article is needed, it provides a framework, background and overview for a series of related disputes between the two Koreas which has been going on since the 90’s, and provides a summary of the various incidents.
 * If a vote is required, I vote to Keep. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse this cogent phrase "framework, background and overview for a series of related disputes" in Xyl 54's diff here. Presented in list format and in other words, this scheme encompasses
 * Conceptual framework +


 * Operational definition +
 * Overview (debate) = Korean maritime border incidents.--Tenmei (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete and merge to NLL We seem to have too many mini descriptions of NLL history all over the place. I just noticed this one had a major error, claiming the NLL was created in 1964. Reducing the number of similar articles will minimise work in keeping them all accurate and up to date, and this article does not seem essential. Rwendland (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It provides a page for the "Crab Wars" themselves, rather than redirecting to the cause of the Crab Wars. For example, you wouldn't go to "1970 FIFA World Cup qualification" for information about the "Football War", and if "Football War" directed there, it would be confusing and hard to find the relevant information. Additionally, if this current situation does break out into war moving forward, this page will be a good base to describe the minor skirmishes between the end of the Korean War and the potential future conflict. Zorgon (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mztourist and Zorgon. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ &lrm; 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Northern Limit Line, per normi. ༆ (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xyl54; this article has the potential to be more comprehensive that the NLL article. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2010 (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.