Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goguryeo-China wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goguryeo-China wars

Goguryeo-China wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

First, according to the "Official Records of Liao Dynasty" and the "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", Sumo Mohe of north Goguryeo founded Balhae, which was the successor of the north Goguryeo. Then Khitan Empire conquered Balhae in 10th century. But in early 12th century Heishui Mohe (i.e., Jurchens) destroyed Khitan Empire and many Sumo Mohe people became part of Jurchens. If one has ever read the "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", the founder Wanyan Aguda had a famous statement: "Balhae and Jurchen are treated as the members of the same familiy". Jurchen is one of the major descendents of Goguryeo.

Second, Jurchens and Manchurians had lots of wars with Han Chinese in 12th, 13th, 17th centuries, but they are part of Chinese now. It is clearly controversial to create "Jurchen-China wars" item for this reason. Such behavior is ridiculous because it doesn't make sense ("Jurchen-Song Dynasty wars" is more-or-less the only proper article name to create). "Goguryeo-China wars" is also controversial because of the non-trivial Goguryeo-Jurchen inheritance. It is obvious that the naming is improper, maybe with some malicious intentions.

I am voting for deletion of this "Goguryeo-China wars" article because of the malicious naming. Here "China" is improperly quoted. Goguryeo, Silla, Baekje, Balhae, Jurchen Jin, Khitan Empire are similar terms at the same level. Korea, China are similar terms at another same level. It is improper and likely malicious to create article names like "Goguryeo-China wars" or "Jurchen-Korea wars". It is comparing a slice of pizza with a whole sandwich. What is the article creator trying to do here? --Jiejunkong 01:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep This is a sourced article on a notable event in world history; I don't see how in any way it qualifies for deletion. If you've got a problem with the way the article is named, you may want to suggest proposing a move for the article instead of deleting it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the page history, I think it was a redirection page for "Goguryeo-Sui Wars", the talk page is still not moved. Then somebody did a weird thing: He inserted lots of biased contents in the redirection page, but kept the talk page! Very weird.--Jiejunkong 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per I don't see how it meets criteria for deletion. the_undertow talk 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you want to see articles like "Jurchen-Korea wars" and "Manchurian-Korea wars"? What kind of malicious people will create such inconsistent names to wikipedia articles? Please use proper names like "Goguryeo-Sui Dynasty wars" "Goguryeo-Silla-Tang Dynasty wars".--Jiejunkong 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not only about the name, and moving. It is an assembly of multiple articles that should be divided into multiple articles. I listed the reason below: Goguryeo itself is a disputed article. An analogy of this ill-named "Goguryeo-China wars" article is an article like "Brandenburg-Germany wars" (Nowadays Germany only holds part of old-time Brandenburg). This is not a wikipedia article you can move into some meaningful names. It should be split into multiple articles. What do you suggest for split? --Jiejunkong 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If you want to rename this article, you're welcome to propose that, however, deletion in this case doesn't seem warranted. Wars are generally notable enough for articles, and if you're not actually disputing the accuracy of the content as a whole, that's enough for me that some information should exist. I suggest engaging in a discussion on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Click on the discussion page and see where you get to. BTW, Goguryeo itself is a disputed article. An analogy of this ill-named "Goguryeo-China wars" article is an article like "Brandenburg-Germany wars" (Nowadays Germany only holds part of old-time Brandenburg). This is not a wikipedia article you can move into some meaningful names. It should be split into multiple articles.--Jiejunkong 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You are arguing for renaming the article, rather than deleting the content. You can do that by moving and redirecting. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing much recent discussion there, and if you want to split the article, there's a {{split}} tag for that as well. FrozenPurpleCube 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep All 'hot' wars (and most 'cold' wars) are notable. --Charlene 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep AfD is not Wikipedia:Requested moves. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The reasoning given for deletion would be like deleting the American Civil War since the South is now part of the US. Nor is there evidence of malice in the naming. Edward321 04:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The content of the article deserves keeping, deal with the name elsewhere. Davewild 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously; if you want to rename it, get consensus to do so. We have plenty of articles about wars that have different names depending on whose perspective is being taken, editors can fight over the names but the articles don't get deleted. Do we delete World War I because people want to call it The War to End All Wars? And I would doubt that the Carthaginians called their fights with Rome the "Punic Wars" (probably something like the "Roman Wars") I guess those go too by the nominator's theory. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 18 May 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.