Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Asia
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 although leaning more towards keep --JForget 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "North Asia" is not commonly used, and does not have a commonly accepted definition. (Web search shows a few uses with various conflicting ad hoc definitions.) The other regions (E,SE,S,Central,West Asia) have UN geoscheme definitions but this does not. JWB (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- North Asia before meant Soviet Asia, with the breakup of the USSR, the former Soviet republics in Asia except Russia and the three Caucasus republics became "Central Asia" while the Caucasus either became European or SW Asian depending on which authority and category you consult, then Russia east of the Urals became North Asia. So the most logical thing to do is to redirect this to Siberia. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that definition of North Asia?
Search on "north asia" shows the term has wildly different definitions, many of which do not contain Siberia at all.
United Nations geoscheme does not include a North Asia.
The most accurate thing to say about "North Asia" would be that it does not have a generally accepted definition, and is only used when it is arbitrarily defined for convenience, from various incompatible viewpoints. --JWB (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The most we can say is that North Asia contains all areas of Asia not already included in other regions - but that's OR. If there's no consensus on a particular region to describe in this article, I'd recommend that the name be redirected to Asia itself. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for consistency with other parts of Asia, although I had a funny feeling about this article the first time I saw it, that it was kind of unencyclopedic. Equally, redirecting to Siberia could be OK. The term "North Asia" gets lots of Google hits, and turns up a lot in Books and Scholar. That should make it notable, right?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If there isn't an agreed standard and the term isn't widely used, its hard to see what this article can actually be about. What's there now is clearly original research. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - better to use UN geoscheme definitions. Does appear to have WP:NOR issues. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although there is apparently a Phillips world atlas that tried to redefine the earth, this is a term that doesn't seem to have caught on. The same atlas refers to "West Asia" which is mostly the "Middle East". Kind of like "Western Eurasia", this is a term that nobody actually uses. Mandsford (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- West Asia is little used (although it gets a bit more use in places like India and Australia) but at least it is a little better defined. North Asia seems to vary between Siberia and various ad hoc combinations of East Asian countries. I only wonder whether we should have a page (or a subsection of Asia) that actually explains this. --JWB (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, you guys have written most of the article about how it is not well defined here. Competing sources are sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't there a policy that search results are not citable as references? People have deleted my references before, claiming this. --JWB (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep the term is widely used, and the citations show it. ditto for West Asia,etc. popularly thought-of regions, however poorly defined, are notable. DGG (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep North Asia's existence is verifiable and there are a lot of sources out there. The lack of consensus on these sources does not mean that we should delete the article. The fact that it is not used by U.N. is not a grounds for deletion if the term predates the UN.--Lenticel (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a widely used term it should be here. If it's primarily a historically-used term, that's irrelevant with regard to the existence of an article here.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep A good term for a geographic area that otherwise would not be defined. It is certainly NOT 'Eastern Europe', as the UN map referenced above would have you believe. UN is a political organization, not one of geographic scholarship. Hmains (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep current rewrite fine by me Will (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (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.