Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Wall

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 Merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone. There is already a section in the article which discusses the wall. It may certainly be expanded upon with good sourcing and verification. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Wall

Korean Wall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Entire article is unsupported OR wbfergus ^Talk 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to DMZ Korea. It's a political term, but not a very notable one, and it's just basically one point of view about the DMZ. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone" or "move to DMZ Korea"? You can't merge to a nonexistant article. --SmokeyJoe 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, in this case, it's more than that. North Korea claims that South Korea literally built a wall. I don't know if it's made the news lately, but the Democratic Peoples Republic free press promoted the story back in 1999. Could be sourced to some extent, though there's not much to the story. North accuses, South denies it. Mandsford 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to DMZ Korea, as Dhartung had mentioned. More convenient as well. I had somewhat saved the article before the big decision happens (when is the question for it). this is iaN 11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As I stated for the nomination, as is, the article is 'original research'. The first reference can not be classified as a reliable source, being merely a statement made by a North Korean official (even if reported in a reliable publication), and the images in the article contradict the statements about the construction of the wall. In the first image, there is no wall, just a fence surrounding a military outpost. It can't even be distinguished who's military uses the outpost. In the second image, it very clearly is not a concrete wall. If it's a wal, then is clearly made of earth, but it could also just as easily be a clear-cut area allowing soldiers to observe if anybody crosses the area. It is hard to tell. So neither image supports the claims made in the article, and therefore actually helps to repudiate the claim made by the North Korean official, which then lends to the aspect of verifiablity. As is, this article does not meet the criteria, and even if merged into another article, would have the same problems. The other article could have a paragraph that merely says "North Korea claims.....", but the rest would have to meet the reliable and verifiable criteria, without violating 'original research'. wbfergus ^Talk 11:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is not OR by the author but is an accurate depiction of a fiction created and promulgated by the DRK. The press releases by what are possibily an unreliable sources, can be taken not as verification of the existence of the wall, but as verification that the DRK wishes to promote the idea that such a wall exists, which this article has bent over backwards to make explicit, the very first sentence containing the word alledgedly, and the second disputed. Given that in all probability that it doesn't exist it shouldn't be merged to DMZ which does exist in the flesh. The wall if it can be said to exist, exists as a propaganda concept and tool of North Korea, that it might not in fact exist in the flesh, does not diminish its existence in the minds of the massed North Korean people. There is also the very real possibility that the DRK leadership have convinced themselves that such a wall exists. A thing does not have to physically exist to be notable and to have an influence on the behaviour of people and governments (if you doubt this just remember that the war being fought in Iraq was sold to the public using non existent Iraqi WMDs). KTo288 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if sources can be found. Seems to be writen well with a few sources and pictures, but it really only needs to be wikified and sourced. —ScouterSig 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Korean Demilitarized Zone. Not enough coverage in secondary sources to support an article. If there were enough material, a move to an accurate name (Ficticious Korean Wall?) would be necessary as the wall never existed. --SmokeyJoe 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect It's an interesting footnote in the rabid propaganda war that's been going for decades, but not really big enough to warrant its own article. It's a good case study of the surreal goings on over there, though. - Richfife 20:46, 2 November 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.