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 no conensus.  Skomorokh  23:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Northeast Asia

Northeast Asia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks notability. It has been unsourced for the entirety of its existence, and a lot of the article consist of nonsense claims (i.e. all of def. 5 on the page; it calls ASEAN+3 Northeast Asia, remember ASEAN refers Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This article needs to be deleted once and for all and all useful content that is verifiable should be merged onto East Asia. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete: non-notable term, un-sourced article. Seb az86556 ( talk) 00:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but totally rewrite article: "Northeast Asia" is a term that is used by some groups, such as:
  • Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/region/478/northeast_asia.html
  • Northeast Asia Economic Forum http://www.neaef.org/
  • Federation of American Scientists http://fas.org/irp/threat/prolif97/ne_asia.html
  • What we need to do is gather the differing definitions by different groups of "Northeast Asia" and explain in the article.
  • WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Much of this definitions are merely just East Asia as it is. I removed nonsensical definition 5 as it made no sense. It would make more sense to just have a small section on East Asia's page about NE Asia Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • The Council of Foreign Relations defines it as Japan and Korea, but this excludes China (ROC and PRC), so the term is different. Maybe in some instances it refers to East Asia, but we need to collect more sources to determine which agencies define it as which. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment if somebody wants to rewrite it, fine. As it stands, it has no merit. Seb az86556 ( talk) 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Not sure where I fall on this. I think it's a pretty non-notable term made up by some specific thinktanks/centers (such as the one at Brookings) but not used in mainstream academia. That being said, if enough people are searching for this term on WP (see pageview stats for July) maintaining at least a dab page or dicdef may be useful for readers. (A dab page for this would be something along the lines of:
  • Northeast Asia is a term used by some groups ^{[1] [2] [3]} to refer to the part of East Asia that is made up of Korea and Japan
• and little else other than this). rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
• For a "term made up by some specific thinktanks", it does seem to be in a lot of book titles. Witness The international relations of northeast Asia ( ISBN  9780742516953), Naval strategy in Northeast Asia ( ISBN  9780714649665), The law of the sea and Northeast Asia ( ISBN  9789041114075), The energy balance in Northeast Asia ( ISBN  9780815796725), and Northeast Asia in prehistory ( ISBN  9780299064303), just for starters. Given this, the choices seem to be redirect, disambiguation, or article. None of those require or involve deletion. From the book titles, it seems likely that "article" is going to be the appropriate choice.

  If you are looking for a definition, you can start with the one in the second sentence, on page 1, of the introduction of The major powers in Northeast Asia ( ISBN  9781555875664). Uncle G ( talk) 05:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is what did it for me: "The Council on Foreign Relations defines Northeast Asia as Japan and Korea." I mean, if the term referred to, say, Japan, Korea, Manchuria, Sakhalin, the Russian Far East, and the Kiril Islands, then it might have a little geopolitical oomph, so to speak. But a term for basically two countries (or three nation-states, if you prefer)...I'm just not seeing it as a term that has any real use. People who want to refer to Japan & Korea can say "Japan and Korea," just as easily as they can say "Northeast Asia." KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 15:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: We evaluate these things based on reliable sources, as Uncle G pointed out above, not based on one's own personal feelings. WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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.