Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gageo Reef

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 Note that this keep is not to be construed as an endorsement of the name "Gageo Reef". JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gageo Reef

Gageo Reef (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I initially tagged the article for notability on November 19th, 2007 and informed the editors of the page of my tagging. I asked them to add more information to pass the guidelines for notability. After two weeks, nothing on the page changed, so I proposed deletion on December 3, 2007 and notified the founding editor. That same day DGC deleted the proposed deletion template saying that the article was an adequate stub. I disagree. As I stated in my proposed deletion, there is nothing in the article that shows any notability. As the article states, it is an uninhabited, submerged rock off the coast of South Korea. This is the only significant fact given. It is also said to have been discovered by the Hyuga without reference, but nothing on the Hyuga page mentions the reef or its importance. I question whether that fact is even true. After a thorough internet search, I could find no page to validate its notability or even give any information about the reef. Seeing that with that amount of work, I could still not verify notability and that the original authors seem to not care enough, I believe this article should be deleted. --17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Jdcaust (talk)

• Keep. Geographical features are notable and this one also appears to be a verifiable navigation hazard. A Google and Google News search shows hits in Korean and Chinese. A Korean news article ([1] translated by Babelfish) apparently confirms the 1927 find (by collision). WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid reason for deletion and two weeks is a lightning fast timetable for cleanups around here. I suggest giving this article a chance. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This has the feel to me of one of those international border/sphere of influence disputes. I see that an earlier version of the article referred the reef under the name Rixiang. Is there a larger context here of which we should be aware? Xymmax (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like case of dueling articles and redirects. The reef is in disputed waters and the name of the reef is also disputed. Before it was redirected in November, Rixiang Reef was Chinese rock, also called Gageo Reef, in disputed waters.[2]. The S. Koreans want it called Gageo Reef. The Chinese call it Rixiang Reef. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you. That makes sense. I think we should keep the article, although it seems like its ability to grow may be limited. If I can find sourcing for the competing ownership claims, I'll add that information as well. Xymmax (talk) 21:26, 5 December 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.