Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese–Korean border fence

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 merge to China–North Korea border. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese–Korean border fence[edit]

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

This fence does not exist. There have been various (relatively short) fences at various places at various times along the 1000 km border. Even at the key crossing point of Dandong, China, there has not been a fence of any permanence or size. The issue can be dealt with at the Chinese-North Korean border page. Jack Upland (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it may well be this topic could be better dealt with elsewhere but, "this fence does not exist" probably isn't accurate. It might not be as extensive as the article suggests but there are multiple reliable sources (1 and 2 for example) with photos of the fence. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Significant coverage in the media and as such the subject is notable. That it is not a continuous fence can not be used as an argument. The Mexico–United States barrier (one of its alternative names is "The Border Fence") is not a continuous fence either. - Takeaway (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Due to me overlooking that the nominator mentioned that there is also a China–North Korea border article (please link and highlight these things in future for clarity and ease of access), I propose to merge of these two articles under a the name China-North Korea barrier. "China-North Korea border" sounds inadequate for the content. I have seen that there are many other articles in the list Border barrier that include the word "barrier" when there is a significant amount of fencing or walls involved. - Takeaway (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge into China–North Korea border. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it but it largely overlaps that article as a topic: people interested in the border will be interested in the fence and vice-versa, the two topics are closely related. Both articles are short, even merged the article will be far shorter than many.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think we can eliminate the China-North Korea border page as suggested previously. That's a fairly important topic that could be expanded. And it's not just that the fence isn't continuous. That is a straw man argument. There have been reports of fences of 10 or 20 km on the 1000 km border. This is in contrast to the Mexico–United States barrier which apparently runs for a third of the border. Moreover, it is clear that these fences have not been permanent. Both the reports cited above relate to Dandong in China. 2 is from 2005 and shows a substantial fence (but not 4 m high). But (1 from this year shows a fence that is hardly a serious barrier at all - and this with North Korea just across the stream. This is exactly the same spot at which I took my photos in 2012, when there was no fence. See Talk:Chinese-Korean border fence. Sure, you can say that's original research. But that is rather perverse, because if I had found a fence and photographed it, it would be permitted to add it to the article. The fundamental issue is that people, including in the media, assume there must be a barrier and don't bother to verify it. This seems to be just another example of sensationalism and inaccuracy in reporting North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my point with those sources wasn't that the fence was "substantive" or "continuous" - it was to query your opening comment that the, "fence does not exist". It clearly does. It doesn't matter if it's a big fence or a little fence or a fence that China is taking more seriously than its neighbour (there are plenty of those border fences). So the question then is whether or not the fence that does exist has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Even if it has, merging it still an option. But the accuracy of the article is not a reason for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Jack Upland is right. After researching it some more by reading beyond the headlines, it is true that most Western media portrayal is more sensationalism than factual reporting. The Australian SBS report is the only one which reports anything about the extent. Others show images of big fences and fences that are being built, but the only thing we get to read is that China is "in a quick tempo" building new fences or heightening/electrifying old ones, without actually saying what the extent of all this is. It would seem that China is taking their fences serious, but going about it in a patchwork manner, building or extending them only in those stretches which are "popular" escape routes.China Post wikileaks. Yep, ~~delete~~ merge and move part of the verifiable content into China-North Korea border article until more reliable sources state that the fencing is significantly extensive. - Takeaway (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my previous comment. - Takeaway (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China–North Korea border. Content about the fence can be preserved there, perhaps has a section.--Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China–North Korea border, which is where it logically belongs. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess the reason I suggested deletion rather than merging is that if there was a border fence or series of fences running for hundreds of kilometres the topic would merit its own article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China–North Korea border.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2014 (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.