Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Cold War (2nd nomination)

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. L Faraone 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Cold War[edit]

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

Article is simply a remix of information already covered in Division of Korea, Northern Limit Line, Korean maritime border incidents, Korean Demilitarized Zone, Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69), Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and others. Page was previously deleted in 2011 but was unilaterally reinstated by Greyshark09 Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have completed this nomination but do not at this time offer an opinion on this article. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly change the title. The article was not "restored in its original form" from 2011, but was actually expanded from the section on military tensions in the Korean peninsula (Division of Korea article).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Reconsidered, see below.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Division of Korea as duplicate. It's a cut and paste of the other article (which itself offers a good overview of the conflict). It may be possible to have a separate article called something like Timeline of the conflict in Korea, moving material from the older and longer article - but I don't think it's long enough to need that. It's not reasonable to have the exact same content duplicated in 2 articles with different titles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Colapeninsula to redirect it to Division of Korea as it is very similar. Perhaps the non-overlapping information from Korean Cold War can be moved Division of Korea? —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 21:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above reasons for redirect are fine, but the whole concept of this article displays incorrect historical periodization. I would guess the original author meant to convey the series of border conflicts between ROK and DPRK; that information is already covered in Korean Demilitarized Zone. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator said this is content forking of Division of Korea Pug6666 20:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - considering my second review of Division of Korea, i withdraw my keep vote, should be a redirect. We should however rename "Division of Korea" to "Korean conflict" or "Korean dispute" to make the title fit content.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the suggested renaming is appropriate as in some references the Korean War (i.e. 1950-53) is referred to as the Korean Conflict, while Korean dispute is too vague, Division of Korea is accurate if inelegant Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject of this article has been mentioned once by a reliable sources but the term is rarely used and in that single mention it is not given significant coverage, therefore although the period of time obviously exists the term may not be its common name and the content (as stated above) already covered in other related articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:49, 28 May 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.