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 delete, primarily WP:CRYSTAL. The 2017 North Korea crisis merge can be done outside the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Second Korean War

Second Korean War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the closure undertaken by me at Talk:Second Korean War#RfC about WP:BALL.Purely procedural.No comments on merit. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Yes I think that policy says we should AFD this as it is clear that the speculation is about speculation "If a war were to happen (which it wont) this might happen". This is not sufficient for an article. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteRedirect this (as originally to Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69)) and delete similar articles on speculated non-certain future conflicts. Fails WP:BALL(1) and possibly (3). A war while possibly likely is definitely not certain and the date of said possible war is even less certain. Procedurally - I suggest moving this RfC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (and discuss future possible conflicts in general, with the Korean peninsula provided as an example/test-case), and place this article in AfD - which I intend to doand restore the redirect in this article. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Moot
  • Not sure we need to do anything more then leave a message at Milhist. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I think it is a wider discussion - it really isn't specific to Korea. Should we create Chinese Invasion of Taiwan (speculated), War of the South China Sea (speculated), Shia-Sunni war of the 21st Century (speculated) (GCC vs. Iran)? The arguments for/against all of these (the more notable ones) are the same. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Ahh I see, yes I think an RFC on "speculated wars" is a good idea, but not this one war. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Do we not have WP:GNG? The judgement on these future wars seems pretty straight forward, as any other article on Wikipedia. Casprings ( talk) 15:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    It is presumed notable per GNG (no argument - copious reputable literature addresses the possible speculated future conflict), however GNG also states "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Specifically failing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not-> WP:BALL. Meeting GNG is not enough in and of itself - if you fail on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article and expand it. The speculation itself meets Wikipedia:GNG. It has been ongoing since the end of the first Korean War. When such a possible event gets that much long term coverage from WP:RS an article should not just be allowed, it should be encouraged as it clearly meets the core purpose of Wikipedia. Casprings ( talk) 15:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Question If WP:BALL means WP:AfD for this article, does it also mean WP:AfD for Korean reunification? Casprings ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Well that would be a question for that pages talk page. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    You could discuss this there, however reunification is a NK and SK policy goal, with actual government ministries, talks, etc. I don't see how that would get deleted - at most name changed (perhaps - a process tacked on - but I doubt even that) - as this is an ongoing attempted process (e.g. similar to Israeli–Palestinian peace process, or other multi-year processes). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, yes, but to where? Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69) or 2017 North Korea crisis? The problem with using a time-bound article is that it is or will soon become obsolete. And then, when there's another "crisis" in Korea, this same issue will re-emerge. Perhaps it could be redirected to Korean conflict, but that's not a perfect fit either...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis to Korean conflict#The Trump era is a possibility..it seems a good fit. Irondome ( talk) 17:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    I can live with that. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    per Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) (where this was redirected previously before the usurpation) he Korean DMZ Conflict, also referred to as the Second Korean War by some,[2] was a series of low-level armed clashes between North Korean forces and the forces of South Korea and the United States, largely occurring between 1966 and 1969 at the Korean DMZ; - this was an actual conflict involving gunfire/etc - a few hundred dead on each side - a bit less than War of Attrition... Korean conflict is the first Korean war. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Nothing really is a perfect fit. But Korean conflict has the advantage that it is not timebound. At the same time time we could remove 2017 North Korea crisis link from the Trump era section and merge 2017 North Korea crisis into the Trump era section. Korean conflict is the closest we have to a political/economic/sociological/military overview of the whole 70 odd year conflict. Remember 1953-2017 is technically just a ceasefire. Irondome ( talk) 17:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    Well actually this one Korean War is/was, a merge to Korean conflict (which discuses the whole history of the situation form the end of Ww2 to the present day) seems to fit this material, as pretty much this is all, part of the wider issue of the unending war. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Saying there might be a "Second Korean War" is naive. There have been lots of wars during the long History of Korea. This basically "new" article should be reverted to its original purpose, which was a redirect to the mis-named series of 1966–1969 conflicts following the actual/modern- Korean War. How future nK vs sK conflicts might play out is best set forth in Korean conflict. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC) To be clear, my !vote is merge to the original purpose – as a redirect. 18:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete pure crystal-ball gazing. It seems that every time NK fires a missile or explodes a nuke someone feels the need to create a "what if" page about a second (or third) Korean War. Stick to blogs, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia. Mztourist ( talk) 06:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis to Korean conflict#The Trump era as per Irondome and Jack Upland. Borsoka ( talk) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis Article about a possible future event is not appropriate. Tornado chaser ( talk) 00:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Second Korean War This sort of page brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Gumsaint ( talk) 03:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is not enough WP:RS to meet the requirements for WP:N. It does not make sense to redirect to another article, as Jack Upland noted, it is a time-bound article. LPW22 ( talk) 16:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Moot !votes.
This is not that article. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Noticed just now and amended my comment accordingly. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
This was a redirect to Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) for many years. It has been hijacked to create this crystal ball essay. The former redirect was correct (at least in my mind) - so AFDing isn't exactly the right venue. Note that the creator of the essay is the one who jumped the gun, so to say, and ran the RFC - and has been since been claiming that the RFC should run its course prior to restoring the redirect. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comments from nominator: Throughout the discussion, a host of merge! votes, concerned with a different article, is observed.It may be of kind attention to all the future participants and the closer, that this AfD does not concerns itself with the merge of any other topic and such !votes may be avoided and/or discounted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are no more wars in the Korean Peninsula since the Korean War. Sawol ( talk) 12:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Technically, the "first" Korean War has not ended, there has only been an armistice. Any content not in the 2017 crisis article should go there, instead of full deletion. 331dot ( talk) 13:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If someone wants to merge the content into another article that's fine by me, but this is random speculation, not actual verifiable events. Shelbystripes ( talk) 01:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Pure WP:BALL. Every time the North Koreans launch a missile, the media speculates about an impending war. Wikipedia, however, is not a newspaper, and its editors are supposed to think differently than a media journalist, according to WP:RECENTISM. When we fail to do that, essays founded on fabrication can flourish. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the crystal ball gazing and restore the original redirect to Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69). Mztourist ( talk) 06:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Merge ONLY: please do not redirect it to the Wikipedia article as the first Korean war is still not finished, because of Korean Armistice Agreement 1953, the second war could not be happened, and it is Pure WP:BALL and the current subject would mislead public. The subject leads a speculation for the another speculation. It not enough WP:RS, it would also fall in to the area: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. To respect the contributions of the content, please relocate the current content to the draft space, the some of the contents and contributions would be entirely beneficial to merge 2017 North Korea crisis, after creating the subsection military option. Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 03:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and the rest per Irondome. The US is still at war with PROK so we can't have a second…oh I'm just regurgitating Goodtiming. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for all the reasons listed above and for the all the reasons discussed at the page.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:12, 22 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Second_Korean_War&oldid=1138349507"