Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Gun Ri Massacre

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 keep. I'm closing this as SNOW keep; it's a famous event. the exact title can be discussed further if necessary, but I think the evidence conclusively supports the present title. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Gun Ri Massacre

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

This article is a POV fork of No Gun Ri. As No Gun Ri is the name of a village in South Korea, perhaps you are wondering why it is not an article about this village. There is lengthy discussion in the talk archive regarding what the title of the article on the Korean War incident should be. "No Gun Ri tragedy", "No Gun Ri Massacre", and "No Gun Ri Incident" were all proposed and rejected. The consensus was to avoid any characterization of the incident that might be construed as POV. So the article was put at the plain title "No Gun Ri." This was done not once, but twice, here and here. However, editors opposed to this consensus have recreated and expanded the No Gun Ri Massacre article. Kauffner (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; well written article on a notable topic that passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, so clearly not going to be deleted. I've offered to discuss the article title in more depth, but there has not been any further discussion from Kauffner on that. For the record; No Gun Ri makes little sense as that is a location, a little distance from the event to which it lends its name. I personally am apathetic about whether we use "massacre", "killings" or "incident" but a) there is no problem with using a controversial term if that is the WP:COMMONNAME and b) massacre seems to edge out the other terms in scholarly coverage. The correct process here would have been WP:RM or some form of WP:RFC --Errant ^(chat!) 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth pointing out here that my involvement with this article is unrelated to the recreation of the article at this title; that happened some time ago. I'm just involved in the much more recent effort to create a better article on the subject to replace the crappy one that existed before. So I can't comment on the recreation aspect; *shrug* consensuses change and this article sure doesn't make any sense at No Gun Ri :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter where the incident happened. It is universally referred to as "No Gun Ri." If it didn't happened at No Gun Ri, why would you want to call it the "No Gun Ri Massacre"? "No Gun Ri Massacre" gives you 368 Google Book results, while "No Gun Ri" gives you 1,670. Kauffner (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clearly No Gun Ri will have more hits, that is basic set theory - and although only 1/6 of hits directly use the term "No Gun Ri massacre" various other formulations (e.g. "massacre at No Gun Ri") have tangible hits. And almost all of those sources note a massacre somewhere within their pages (scan these results). I have most of the key source texts for this topic in front of me - and they all identify it as a massacre. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you prefer the name "No Gun Ri Massacre", proper procedure is to RM "No Gun Ri" to "No Gun Ri Massacre." This method is quite underhanded. Whether it was a massacre or not is a separate question from whether the word "massacre" is part of the name. Amazon's top selling book on this subject is entitled No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident. So just plain "No Gun Ri" is understood to refer this incident even on first reference. Kauffner (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - A little good faith is appropriate; those discussions were some time ago, the standalone article was recreated way before my involvement (and the replacement with much improved material) so I was unaware of that situatuon. The time to have complained about the switch back to the new name would have been when it occurred. By letting it stand you, unfortunately, gave it legitimacy. I was going to propose opening an RFC to discuss all of these details but (and if we are talking about using the wrong process...) now we have this AFD so it doesn't seem worth it. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about the mass killings July 26-29, 1950 rather than the village itself. This incident satisfies WP:N, with many books and articles written about it. Having an article about a notable mass killing is not a "POV fork," any more than the article Malmedy massacre is a POV fork of Malmedy, or My Lai Massacre is a POV fork of My Lai, Vietnam. The article No Gun Ri is specifically about the place, which existed before the killings took place. Wikipedia convention assumes notability for every documented village or hamlet. Arguments about whether to call it a "massacre," an "incident," or a "battle" (like the Battle of Fort Dearborn) should take place on the talk page of the article, but "No Gun Ri massacre" looks like most appropriate title, since Google Books has 726 results for "No Gun Ri massacre, 310 for "No Gun Ri incident", 35 for No Gun Ri killings" and zero results for "Battle of No Gun Ri". The argument that most Google search results for the place name return results about the massacre is unconvincing as a reason why No Gun Ri should be about the killings and not the village. Merger is inappropriate. Talk:No Gun Ri shows no consensus for the move or merger several years ago by the nominator of this AFD several years ago to make No Gun Ri be about the killings. Edison (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could look at your own examples. My Lai is a redirect to My Lai Massacre. Unlike No Gun Ri, My Lai is an international tourist attraction. Kauffner (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So... My Lai is redirected to the massacre name.... that could work equally well here. So long as we have a seperated location article (like My_Lai,_Vietnam) then I'm happy. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't care about any name changes, but this is a notable event. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator is not actually proposing deletion, simply objecting to the name. There's no doubt that this is a notable event, whether you characterise it as a 'massacre' or not; and while personally I think the current name is defensible, if it can be shown that it's not the common name in scholarly sources, this article should be renamed, not deleted. I don't agree that this article should be located at No Gun Ri, since that should be an article about the location, not the event (e.g. Srebenica vs Srebenica massacre). Robofish (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steady Keep - No reason to even argue on why this is notable. Just keep it.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you dont delete an article just because you dont like the name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting well sourced content over naming issues is not a good idea. Also the term massacre is used in external (reliable) sources, so it is fair for WP to use that term as well (though that doesn't necessarily mean the use it mandatory but possibly only optional). In any case the massacre/incident should have its own article that is separate from the village and note that this structure is also in in line with existing interwikis.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other keep arguments. Although it is not supported by further argument or examples, the nomination contends that this article is POV. A good closer should ignore unsupported assertions; nevertheless I will address the contention of POV directly, by quoting WP:NPOV : "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." There is a more specific section somewhere about not removing material that can be seen as detrimental to a person or organization but is cited by sources, I think it might be in the WP:BIO somewhere. Anarchangel (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2012 (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.