Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryukyu Islands dispute


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands dispute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ryk72 requested speedy deletion (CSD A10). But I think that this article shuld exist in wikipedia as seperated article. Ryukyu Islands dispute arose before than Senkaku Islands dispute. --Skirtland (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Frivolous deletion request. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Convinced by the argument. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete;  Merge relevant aspects to Senkaku Islands dispute . With respect to, this is not a frivolous deletion request. The vast majority of the article as it stands is not supported by any reliable sources; it appears to consist largely of WP:OR, and to be a WP:POVFORK which contradicts aspects of the Ryukyu Islands & History of the Ryukyu Islands articles. All of the sources which are used to support aspects of the article are primarily about the Senkaku Islands dispute; none relate to a wider Ryukyu Islands dispute. Google searches for additional supporting sources are not fruitful. The topic does not appear to pass WP:GNG. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding. Here is what source cited says: "Let's for now not discuss whether [the Ryukyus] belong to China, they were certainly China's tributary state," Luo said in an interview with China News Service. "I am not saying all former tributary states belong to China, but we can say with certainty that the Ryukyus do not belong to Japan," he added, " -- You may not like the article, but the dispute seems pretty much here. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I assure editors that I am not "kidding". The source referred to is the New York Times. Looking at the whole of the source, rather than a single quote, however, provides a different view of the content. We (quite reasonably) regard the NYT as a reliable source, but I could not in good faith assert that this source verifies anything more than an outburst of sentiment within China for a desire to strengthen a claim on the Senkaku Islands, by making a wider claim on the whole of the Ryukyus - it certainly does not verify that there is a legitimate international dispute over these islands.
 * The NYT article clearly attributes the quote as a hawkish Chinese military official argued that the Japanese did not have sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands because its inhabitants paid tribute to Chinese emperors hundreds of years before they started doing so to Japan. Looking into this and the Guardian source, shows that the quote traces back to the South China Morning Post (the Guardian explicitly so), which is clearly a biased source. There is nothing in the NYT & Guardian sources, nor any of the others, to indicate that this is anything more than another shot in the Senkaku Islands dispute; which is referenced by each of the sources.
 * As with all others, I neither like nor dislike this Wikipedia article, I just do not agree that it meets the standards for inclusion as a separate article. The claims of military hawks and State newspapers are clearly noteworthy as part of the Senkaku Islands dispute, but they are not notable enough for their own article.
 * In short, I am not saying that we should exclude this information; simply that we should include it in context, as part of the Senkaku Islands dispute, in the same way that the sources regard it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * i agree with your logic, but in this case "merge" option precludes "delete" due to our copyright policy. - üser:Altenmann >t
 * Hi, I agree with the complications around the copyright policy, but believe that it would be possible for us to both comply with policy and delete. The Beginnings section of the article is largely unsourced or poorly (non-RS) sourced; overlaps the contents of the Ryukyu Islands & History of the Ryukyu Islands articles (WP:POVFORKingly so to a large extent) - there is little to no encyclopedic content in this section, and I believe it can be safely deleted.
 * New encyclopedic content does indeed exist in the 2010s section, but the text of this is limited to In 2010s, China questions Japan's sovereignty of Ryukyu Islands.; an incomplete, somewhat inaccurate reflection of the 3 RSes used for this section - the sources used here can be mined for a fuller, expanded coverage, at the Senkaku Islands dispute article, without relying on copying this sentence verbatim - I believe this would satisfy the copyright concerns. I welcome your thoughts on this potential approach. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This discussion should be closed immediately because user Skirtland is not the nominator for the deletion. STSC (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, W.r.t this question, please see WP:NOTBURO. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and probably don't redirect it. No evidence has been provided that there is any real-world dispute, i.e. a claim seriously advanced by the Chinese government or something of that sort. &mdash;innotata 04:08, 28 August 2015 (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.