Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Korean War

Add links
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 no consensus. Much of the talk here deals with reworking/renaming/merging this can certainly continue on the appropriate talk pages. J04n(talk page) 22:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future Korean War[edit]

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

Entirely speculative page going against WP:CRYSTAL, among other guidelines. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't entirely speculative - Fx the mentions of OPLAN 5027 is not speculation, and there are other parts of the article which are acceptable too. Thue (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OPLAN 5027 is an existing plan intended to prepare the US and SK forces for a possible future event. This article is about a possible future event, not one that will most likely happen (like the Olympic games or FIFA championships). The very introduction says it is a "hypothetical scenario", we're in the realm of speculative fiction here. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be against WP:CRYSTAL, but on the other hand it could be kept as notable hypothetical conflict, such as World War Three. 31.45.146.34 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Besides being against the policy cited by the above anon, there's already an article on this topic; North Korea crisis. That's all this is right now. It would make more sense to add a section to the linked article about any acceptable sources discussing a possible war.
(WW III has an article because the threat existed for so long and so many sources wrote about it. Some folks even say the Cold War itself was WW III.) Anynobody(?) 19:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A resumption of the Korean War has been a possibility since the armistice was signed in 1953, so by your measure (how long there has been a tangible threat of a possible conflict), an article for a possible future Korean conflict has as much merit as the WWIII article. Joshbunk (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Rename. The choice of title is unfortunate in light of WP:CRYSTAL. However, this problem could be surmounted by renaming to Proposed scenarios for a future Korean conflict or something similar. If we look at the article as strictly being about an overview of the published literature describing such scenarios, then it seems to me that the topic would become potentially encyclopedic. However, I'm not certain if this topic would be best presented in its own article or as a subsection of North Korea crisis. Being rather unfamiliar with the pertinent details, I'm also not certain about the quality of sources available; aside from OPLAN 5027, does the published literature on this topic consist mainly of journalists stating their opinions, or are there high quality analyses prepared by defense experts? --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge with Division of Korea. This is different from North Korea crisis (2013), as that is about an ongoing event, and this consists of more speculative material. Ansh666 04:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now/rename The article as it stands (which is much the same as when I first voted a week ago, to be honest) is rather disjointed and gives off the feeling of being a trivia page. If it can be improved, it might be worth keeping. If anyone decides to do this, I can....correct formatting and typos?... Ansh666 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge and lets go with OPLAN 5027 as a much stronger replacement. It is an article that is in need of attention but could be quite nicely reworked into an acceptable state, adding (if well cited) some of the speculative elements of the deleted FKW. Ive replaced FKW with OPLAN 5027 in Division of Korea "see also" articles. Likewise with North Korea crisis (2013) It should have been there anyway, not this concoction. Its certainly a more suitable link with a much stronger cite background. Irondome (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the love of God delete. Articles should not exist that are pure speculation. Only future events that are sure to happen, such as future Super Bowls, should have articles. JOJ Hutton 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not the sort of thing that should be on Wikipedia. I'd say that it's articles like this that the deletion process was designed to weed out! Could be renamed or reworked somehow, but it would need a lot of changingSophiahounslow (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename. If it's a serious enough hypothetical for war colleges to study, it's serious enough for Wikipedia. Besides, I recall Ted Koppell on Nightline back in the day asking a retired American general who had been with the R.O.K. what would happen if the balloon did go up. The guy thought a moment, and said that there would be a period of high-intensity warfare not seen since WWII, if then. kencf0618 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think deleting and using the credible bits and expanding OPLAN 5027 in its place. Irondome (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a good proposal if OPLAN 5027 were the only significant analysis of the topic issued by an authority in military/defense matters. However, other (independent) analyses by defense experts may exist too, in which case this topic would be too broad to be covered by OPLAN 5027. Via a brief Google search, I came across "North Korea's military strategy" (US Army War College Quarterly, Spring 2003) and "North Korea's Armed Forces: All Dressed Up, with Places to Go?". Perhaps more thorough searches would reveal other analyses of a potential future conflict published in such respected sources as Jane's Information Group, STRATFOR, or a journal covering defense/military matters. I'm no expert and I'm not particularly familiar with the range of published sources covering military matters, so perhaps someone with more expertise could uncover additional sources. At any rate, even though the topic is inherently speculative, the article still has WP:POTENTIAL if the topic has been the subject of significant discussion in multiple reliable sources (WP:GNG). --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Agricola makes some good points. I saw the USAWCQ piece a few years ago, and it looked good. There is a lot of reputable and relevant material on the web to really strengthen a replacement. I would suggest OPLAN 5027 be used as the core of an expanded article, using the newer sources, without resorting to speculative futurology. I suggest Korea current warplans and strategic forecasts or similar. Irondome (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep / rename based on the precedent set by World War Three, a well-written and informative article that doesn't go against WP:CRYSTAL. Sure, some of the material in the current version does, but there's no reason it couldn't be brought up to a standard like that of the WW3 article. It's important to distinguish, I think, that this and the WW3 article are not meant to be "what would happen if X and Y went to war" or something as random as "who would win in all-out war, Brazil or Argentina"; that kind of thing doesn't belong here. Both of these conflicts are things that have been researched, with expert opinions to cite, and are situations which could realistically present themselves at some point in the next few years.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/refocus/rename surely the possibility of the event is a serious enough thing for wikipedia. Granted, its about the chances and possible outcomes that the article should be focused, and it is, except for the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.71.210.165 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename Hypothetical Korean War perhaps? If newsworthy simulations are being carried out, I think it should be an article.  Julius   Know  01:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL bars us from including unverifiable speculation or original research about the future. It doesn't bar us from reporting the conclusions of reliable sources about potential future events, as (part of) this article does. While the article ought to be renamed, and a merge to Division of Korea might be advisable, I don't see any reason for deletion. Hut 8.5 11:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - speculative and violation of CRYSTAL. Wikipedia generally doesn't deal in hypotheticals: there's only so much you can say about a war that hasn't happened. World War III is a permissible exception due to the sheer popularity of that concept in culture, but there hasn't been nearly as much written about this one, even taking into account recent tensions. Robofish (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some hypothetical future events receive enough press to be Notable. This does not necessarily violate WP:CRYSTAL: As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. There are contingency plans for a war in Korea, which seems reasonably probable at this moment and has at other moments in the last 50 years, and I would like to know what they are and have been. I'd like to know what people saying about a Korean war, what its impact would be, and what could prevent it. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for this. Listmeister (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / rename I also agree that it complies with CRYSTAL, even with this line- "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This is an expected future event that is without a doubt very notable and it is also almost certain to take place. For unless the DPRK's Kim Jong-un has a heart attack and dies, this war is happening. Kim Jong-un is just about as determined to start this war as Odysseus was to get home.--ɱ (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (1) Full-bodied articles already exist on this topic, but it's not worth a merge because, (2) the title is a POV problem. Other more neutrally-titled articles for this topic include: North Korea–South Korea relations, 2013 North Korean crisis, and Division of Korea. (OPLAN 5027 is a bit too specific). Back to the title POV problem, while the article's contents may be real, the title's spirit is against the of WP:CRYSTAL, as it is fundamentally speculative that there will be armed confrontation. And any cultural or notable speculation (the only remaining basis for an independent article) extends as a topic from the current DPRK–SK relations status quo, which is already established with its own article. czar · · 02:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All notable and verifiable (described in multiple RS) speculation belongs to wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2013 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Future_Korean_War&oldid=1172630278"