Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo

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 redirected. Most of the people seem to agree with merging due to large overlap with Complex of Goguryeo Tombs. Our policy states that we merge articles that have the same subject. As in this case it is not easy to determine which content actually can be merged, I redirected the article and left a notice on Talk:Complex of Goguryeo Tombs that an editor with more knowledge of the subject might be able to retrieve some usefull information from the history of the redirect. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo[edit]

Proposed for deletion because of edit history and unverifiable content. (1) More time, effort and care were invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than originator invested in text draft, and (2) there have been no other editors willing or able to address substantive problems which remain in this stagnant article. Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that can be sourced (and isn't a copyvio) to the existing article Complex of Goguryeo Tombs, and redirect there. Deor (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first blush, the merge of Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo and Complex of Goguryeo Tombs would seem obvious; but combining two separately-created unsourced articles produces only a larger problem -- a systems-focused solution which only appears to be a constructive step towards something better, but which does nothing to resolve the content issues -- see Talk:Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo#Deletion.

Complex of Goguryeo Tombs looks legitimate to me; but without in-line citations and bibliographic references, I can't really know. I do know that Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo was created by an anonymous contributor who also abandoned a similarly-composed article about Joseon missions to Japan during the Edo period of Japanese history. I can't help but wonder if there is some kind of obscure POV-driven agenda which makes sense in terms of a skewed Pyeongyang-informed analysis? I certainly hope that there are other, better and more innocent explanations for this ..., but without more, even this kind of extreme possibility can't be ruled out.

The first line at WP:V is on-point in this context:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

This posting may be an impossible-to-unsnarl mixture of fact and fiction or it may be crucially flawed or misleading or contrived in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- we just don't know ...?

I foresee problems in what you modestly suggest. The critical editing you propose would inevitably involve parsing the text: What to leave in? What to edit out?

Even with strict adherence to WP:V, that task quickly becomes an impossible-to-navigate, ever-changing mine field of potential misunderstandings. I don't have the temerity to broach a Sisyphean struggle without looking for alternatives ....

I was hoping that by listing this article here, it might be pulled within the ambit of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron? --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Complex of Goguryeo Tombs lacks inline references, but some of the content is clearly derived from the UNESCO page linked in the "External links" section; and because Complex of Goguryeo Tombs seems to be the official name of the Heritage Site, that would appear to be the best title for the article to appear under. The Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo article does seem rather WP:OR-y, and that's why I predicated my merge recommendation on there being found some sources to back the information up. If no sources can be found, I'm happy with a straight redirect. Deor (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As one of the worlds heritage sites it's fairly certain that sources exists. Verifiability of provided information is outside the remit of AfD. Taemyr (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Deleting the chunk of contents which potentially valued information is a bad idea. I'm willing to source the contents. To be correct, the creator is not an anonymous user (he or she has the own ID!) As I was looking through Joseon tongsinsa, the creator seems to be sticking to facts as I referred to a Korean source. The content would nourish Complex of Goguryeo Tombs.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I see that the author of the article hasn't been notified of either this AfD or that of Joseon tongsinsa. Even though s/he hasn't edited since April, I've added notifications to his or her talk page. Deor (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of references or sources which are required by the verifiability policy. See also WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I don't see what merging unreferenced content is going to accomplish, but wouldn't object to keeping the edit history in case that can actually (and not merly hypothethically) be changed.

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.