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 No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-American War[edit]

Sino-American War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This war has never happened and is only hypothetical. Even the Israeli-Lebanon War was not classified as a war until nearly weeks into the 2006 conflcit. No attempt has been made to create a Iran War page even though that as recevied much mroe attention and is more likely. In addition the only edits to this page have been made by radical conservatives, and the enitre page seems to promoting a view point. --Stalin1942 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hypothetical or not, the article cites several good sources that discuss the possibility of such a war, including ISBN 0679454632, which is a 245-page book on the subject. Uncle G 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Crystal-balling, unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read our policy properly. Speculation is only unencyclopaedic when it is unverifiable. There are several entire books on this subject. Uncle G 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." --Guinnog 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now read the rest of the policy surrounding that sentence, which shows that that sentence doesn't apply here. As I said, please read our policy properly. Uncle G 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already read it. I find it slightly offensive that the only reason you can imagine that I might support the deletion of this trashy piece of OR would be that I was ignorant of the policy. Delete, with extreme prejudice. --Guinnog 14:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nonetheless, you have not read it properly, because you are clearly mis-applying it. You are also mis-applying our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please learn what the crystal ball policy applies to and does not apply to, and what does and does not constitute original research. The crystal ball policy does not apply to speculation on future events that is verifiable from good sources, as this is; and content that summarizes such already published speculation and analysis, as this one does, is not original research. Please read and apply our policies properly. Uncle G 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rubbish. --Guinnog 14:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The policies are quite clear. Please read them and apply them properly. You apparently have no counterargument based in policy. Uncle G 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. About four fifths of article consists of books and sources relating to the subject, while the article itself says not much more than that there have been speculations over a US-China war after the Cold War. That is too thin a basis for an article, an article needs some description of the subject matter. Something could probably be written here given the sources, but this article is not it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you have described is a stub that has copious sources cited upon which further expansion of the article can be based. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy we don't delete stubs that have scope for expansion (especially ones where the scope for expansion is handed to editors on a platter with lots of citations). We expand them. Uncle G 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am changing my vote to keep because of the expansions to the article. I do stand by my opinion that the revisions initially nominated were deletable. I agree with you that we don't delete stubs for being stubs, but I felt that the revision I described above was not even a stub, but a mere collection of literature with no "body" of encyclopedic content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete There are too many things which may happen and we don't want to make articles on the basis of guess or forecast . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, per our policy we allow articles with credible research (i.e. research published by reliable sources — once again, witness the published books on this subject) that embody predictions. There is no speedy deletion criterion matching your rationale. Please apply our policies properly. Uncle G 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. This AfD debate is a spectacular demonstration of how our eyes too often allow us to see only what we want to see and nothing else: "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." And this one is well-documented. Resurgent insurgent 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III for another brilliant application of WP:NOT#CBALL. Resurgent insurgent 15:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I think World War III is a considerably more encyclopedic topic than this one.--Guinnog 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And both are "future events" that are by no means certain to occur, no? Resurgent insurgent 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And one has three quoted references, all taken in turn from one book. The other has many dozens. Therefore one is a delete, and the other is a keep. --Guinnog 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because someone can't be bothered to actually get the refernces into the article, even though they are certainly out there on the Web, is not a valid reason to delete. Resurgent insurgent 15:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By all means feel free to provide some more encyclopedic references and content; this is the only thing that might change my mind. --Guinnog 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, lack of content in a valid encyclopedic concept is a reason for expansion, not deletion. The cites are well-out there - Factiva returns 48 hits for "Sino-American War" (in quotes) while JSTOR returns 23 for the same term. People have been writing about this anticipated conflict. There is already sufficient material for a well-sourced stub. Resurgent insurgent 16:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't quite agree, and as I said, I would need to see evidence rather than argument before I would change my mind. As it stands it is a delete I'm afraid. --Guinnog 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Evidence was presented to you before your above comment and it has been expanded after. Sources have been commenting about its possibility as far back as 1965 and if your !vote is not elaborated upon by this AfD's end it sounds pretty invalid. Resurgent insurgent 13:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, it does seem to be sourceable. I am concerned that this is going to open the floodgates for hypothetical wars between X and Y, as long as a handful of people have commented on them. This would not just include wars of the future, but past hypothetical wars which never happened, including alternate versions of real wars, if they started earlier or later. Reliably sourced speculation probably extends to all manner of subjects, not just wars. I note that commercial products which have not been confirmed by their manufacturer, particularly video games, are almost never allowed to have articles, even if there is 'reliable' speculation about them; Gears of War 2, for example. The extent to which we want Wikipedia to have articles about hypothetical things is a question which goes beyond this AfD. I sympathise with Guinnog's view; it's easy to see this as being against the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. Finally, this article will probably end up as a grab-bag of pop culture refs, like the WW3 article. We should revisit this in a year; perhaps the policies will have been made more specific.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep If such a possible war has been noted in reliable sources, then it is notable enough for an article. Just as the U.S had plans 100 year ago for war with Canada Mexico Japan, and Britain, I am confident that official and think-tank planners are making analyses of another possible China-America War (seeChina Relief Expedition for the U.S. invasion of China in 1900). But this article is more of a memo about how an article could be written from the sources cited. It does not discuss more causes for such a war than Taiwan, ignoring conflict over oil, and ignoring competition for markets for goods. It does not discuss the relative military strengths and vulnerabilities of the two parties, or their alliances, Janes publications should be cited. The relative manpower and the relative military spending should be discussed. The U.S has what? 5% of the world's population and about 50% of the military spending? With China loaning us all the money? And manufacturing an increasing portion of the high tech components? And soon to demand more food and oil? Edison 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Because of a rise in hostility between the United States and Venezuela, should editors assume that the rationale articulated by Uncle G for keeping this article would equally be applied to a Venezuelan-American War article? What about an Iranian-Israeli war article? It is very possible, and commonly speculated by authors and pundits that those two nations may come to nuclear action against each other in the future (should Iran acquire nuclear weapons). Perhaps an article over the possibility of a future military conflict between Ecuador and Peru, styled the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War? Ecuador and Peru have had loud squabbles over their shared border for years. I can understand both sides of the discussion here, but I'm not sure that keeping this article is the right way to approach it. Don't articles such as these create a precedent that implies that any event that could possibly occur in the future should warrant a Wikipedia article, provided that a few authors provided their opinions on paper? No disrespect whatsoever intended here, and I would enjoy any responses. Many thanks, Scienter 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Vfd onChina as an emerging superpower a very similar article that ironically this article links to. Just to remind everyone if this is allowed to stand it will be the FIRST wikipedia article of this kind and set a dangerous precedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_7 For thoose of you who said "weak keep" couldn't any "relevant" infomration just be merged into Sino-American relations?--Stalin1942 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It might really help to change the name, to something like "Possible future Sino-American War." . There are zero books about the war. "Thinking about China and War", "The Coming Conflict with China" , "Hegemon: China's Plan to Domnate Asia and the World.", "China Threat" These are all books about speculations concerning a possible future war. To use the present title is an unjustified confusion of fact and fiction. I don't see the point of deciding on the basis of our own opinions about what will or will not happen, but on the usual basis of RS. None use the term in the title. Even the ones that seem to expect it don't use the term in the title. Even the posts on google don't use the term in the title except for a single discussion forum. With the present title,

Delete DGG 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • If a page has an incorrect title, don't we move it instead of deleting it? Resurgent insurgent 05:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research and crystal balling. Besides, we could make up hypothetical wars all day long: the Helvetic-American War, the Greco-Tibetan War, the Samoa-Latvian War, the Ruso-Uruguayan War, etc. Lovelac7 07:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is original research, yes - but by published authors and not our editors. People at the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asahi Shimbun, and The Florida Times-Union, among other sources, are doing the speculation for us. We are allowed to document other peoples' published reasoning. Tossing scare words like "original research" and "crystal balling" without justification will get you nowhere. Lastly, show us the published reliable sources for all these other hypothesised wars you mentioned. There will be none. Unlike them, this war - or rather the spectre of it occurring - is causing people to act and publish things. In reliable sources. Resurgent insurgent 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "[p]eople at the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asahi Shimbun, and The Florida Times-Union, among other sources, are doing the speculation for us", then this information should go in those articles, not this one. By combining their theses into one article, Wikipedia is drawing its own conclusions, hence original research. Lovelac7 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Original research by Wikipedia editors is where the information has not been published anywhere else before. Since even you are not denying that someone elsewhere has published their own notes about this hypothesized conflict, these notes are not original research. The article as it stands now is nothing more that a summary of what writers of certain published articles have articulated about this possible conflict. Anyone with access to the listed publications, or a database like JSTOR and Factiva, can verify that none of the editors of the article have inserted non-published thought into it. Combining "thesis" that have already been published elsewhere into one article is not original research; to say otherwise is a distortion of NOR. Resurgent insurgent 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even the "this information should go in those articles, not this one" part is totally contra to what WP:NOR really says... Resurgent insurgent 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Verbatim quote from WP:SYN, part of WP:NOR:
          • Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
        • Synthesizing existing research is still original research. Lovelac7 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read your own provided links again! What SYN forbids is: "A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Position C is only permitted if: "a reliable source... that specifically comments on [positions A and B] makes the same point about [position C]. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia." And I have presented in the article only conclusions and opinions (based on other facts) which are already published in the referenced works. I hereby challenge you to quote exactly from the article any unpublished "position C"s, or else your !vote is invalid. I am doubly sure you will find none. Resurgent insurgent 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You told me to "shut up" in your edit summary. I do not appreciate your lack of manners. This debate is over. Lovelac7 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am sorry for the edit summary. Resurgent insurgent 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Apology accepted. :) Lovelac7 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever we can into a Sino-American relations article of some sort. Also everybody, please calm down. Heads need cooling around here. We should remember that all opinions should be respected, even if we disagree with them(it's best to just say sometimes "I disagree" or "I strongly disagree" rather than other more potentially hurtful or provoking things.)Just H^{editor review} 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly merge into the "China as an emerging superpower" article. There is definitely sourcable speculation on this topic (unlike a Belgian-Pakistani war), so it seems to meet guidelines. SnowFire 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • China as an emerging superpower is a redirect. The article was deleted, apparently. Resurgent insurgent 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sourceable speculation is still speculation. Mangoe 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, this could be part of an article about Sino-American military conflicts that have actually happened (the stuff during Viet Nam), or factual info about US and/or Chinese war planning. I have to say the speculative, weaselwordy tone doesn't help things although I know that poor writing is not a reason to delete. =killing sparrows 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)=[reply]
• Delete, this is very much crystal balling. If it comes to that, someone can archive the current information and if an actual war breaks out, can turn it into an "academic predictors" section. Polymathematics 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#CBALL only forbids unverifiable facts about future events; whether they are likely or not is beside the question: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." If the article is indeed festering with unverifiable information, it should be easy to quote some of these unsourced parts here. Resurgent insurgent 04:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems a case where not only is there doubt about whether the event will occur , there is doubt about what kind of event it will be, it it ever does occur, with most of the proposed sources talking about it under only general terms. DGG 02:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is speculation and inflamitory speculation at that. Tirronan 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, and expand. Lots of 1990's sources not here yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too speculative. May actually be original research, despite the sources. RashBold (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The historical parts of this topic should be covered in articles on Sino-American relations and the speculative parts are crystal ball gazing. --Nick Dowling 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Various authors of books have conducted original research and written about a possible Sino-American War. This article is about the concept of such a war, not about the (nonexisting) war itself! The article is well-sourced and WP:CRYSTAL is utterly inapplicable here as there are more than enough secondary sources about this subject. -- Black Falcon 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: yes, we could make up articles for millions of hypothetical bilateral or multilateral wars. That would be original research. Summarising what other people have written about this one war is not. -- Black Falcon 23:07, 1 April 2007 (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.