Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines and the Spratly Islands

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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines and the Spratly Islands

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

The article explicitly excludes non-Filipino points of view therefore it should be deleted. STSC (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary statement 1. - The basis of my reason is WP:YESPOV requiring "the relative prominence of opposing views". STSC (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary statement 2. - The overall undertone of the article is nationalistically glorifying the Philippine involvement in the disputed Spratly Islands, therefore the best course of action is deletion. STSC (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on the stated rationale for deletion; I don't see explicit exclusion. See WP:DUE, WP:OWN, and WP:SODOIT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to the statement of the article's creator, "Non-Filipino viewpoints regarding Philippine occupation of several islands are not included in this article." And the article was constructed in such a way that non-Filipino views were not included. STSC (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It passes Wikipedia:Content_forking#Acceptable_types_of_forking. Questions regarding the article's neutrality can always be worked on through subsequent editing. That's a better alternative than deleting the article altogether. Xeltran (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Acceptable content fork. Exclusive POV is not an attempt to evade NPOV, but is due to length of the article. Cursory reading shows article is well-sourced enough, worded neutrally, and does actually include opposing opinions and rebuttals where available. Though that's probably limited due to language differences in the involved countries, i.e. a Filipino editor will usually not be able to understand Chinese sources; though the opposite is less true as much of the Philippine media is in English. Scope of article is defined from the start, so the reason for the absence of parallel Chinese, Vietnamese, Malaysian, etc. government policies or activities are quite obvious enough. See Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV. Quoted below, emphasis mine.

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.

It can not be merged into the mother article. But that, in itself, is not a reason for deletion.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of "acceptable" content fork cannot stand particularly Spratly Islands is a hotly disputed territory involving multiple nations and I don't think a content pork for such controversial subject can legitimately exclude the opposing views and remain neutral. Any attempt to evade neutrality by using "acceptable" content fork is gaming the system - WP:GAME. STSC (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Although the content could be merged into the articles such as Spratly Islands or Spratly Islands dispute, the amount of referenced content is so large that it would be subject to WP:TOOLONG, and require that the content be split per WP:SIZERULE. If there is this much referenced content, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Outright deletion is too hasty. This article has 57 cited sources (as of this post), many of which are reliable. Rather than deleting the entire work, perhaps editors can consider improving it, per WP:PRESERVE. Of course, performing research and copy editing requires much more time and energy compared to simply deleting the entry in entirety. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually promoting the Philippine occupation of the disputed islands (e.g, the "Construction policy" section), and it is unacceptable under the neutrality policy. The best course of action is deletion. STSC (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion is not a substitute for Cleanup. Quoting the NPOV FAQ, the NPOV policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. The article can just be rewritten over time. Xeltran (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have wanted to copyedit the article but it's a fundamentally unacceptable POV fork clearly nationalistically promoting and glorifying one country as shown in the above example. (See WP:PROMOTION). It should be deleted according to the deleton policy - WP:DEL. STSC (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some essay-like points in the article that could be original research and synthesis. Copy editing can correct these matters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, I agree that the article is not written in a neutral point of view. The article is supposed to be discussing, and not promoting the Philippines' point of view of the Spratly Islands dispute. However, the article does have a lot of sources to back it up, and as the article is too long to be merged back into the main article of the Spratly Islands dispute, it is an acceptable POV fork. What should be done, instead of outright deletion, is to carefully reword the article in such a way that it is presented in a neutral tone, and reactions from other Spratlys-related articles can be included. Also, there should probably be more sources from non-Filipino sources, preferably Chinese ones, especially for the responses. And this opinion is coming from a Filipino editor! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:47, 3 August 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.