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. Some concerns were shown over the detail and quality of the information, but the overall consensus points at keeping the article. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyu Arc[edit]

Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a content fork of Ryukyu Islands made by User:Masanori Asami, a now blatantly nationalistic editor attempting to push a nationalistic point of view concerning the geopolitical status of the islands. Masanori Asami has also been attempting to push this nationalism on multiple projects, turning the existing redirects into similar articles. There is nothing here that cannot and is not stated on Ryukyu Islands. —Ryulong (琉竜) 07:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By what reason, did Ryulong(琉竜) labels me a nationalist? I'm afraid Ryulong(琉竜) lacks the ability of reading, and I think I am far from a nationalist or a patriot of Japan.(Masanori Asami (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The only reason any disruption happens on articles like these are because of people trying to push an agenda. As someone who is "Japanese", you have already referred to the Treaty of San Francisco multiple times, which is only something an editor with a Chinese nationalist point of view will try to push. You have also referred to a group of embattled islands within the chain as belonging to the Republic of China rather than Japan which shows something questionable is up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be a redirect to Ryukyu Islands. Can be protected if need be. — kwami (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Redirect' to Ryukyu Islands and protect.--Talain (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ryukyu Islands --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 13:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a content fork of Ryukyu Islands. Ryukyu Arc is the technical term of fields of Earth science, Ecology and Archaeology. If you don't have any knowledge of "Ryukyu Arc", please search the word "Ryukyu Arc" at Google, then you will find most of Google search ranking top 20 of "Ryukyu Arc" are the articles in the field of Plate tectonics or Volcanology of Earth Science, and more than half of which are written by Japanese scientists, for not only "Ryukyu Arc" is in Japan but also Japan is the leading nation of the study of Plate tectonics and Volcanology (for there are 3 or 4 tectonic plates in Japan, while there are 2 or 3 in US, and there are many volcanos in Japan. ), and English is the international language of science.(Masanori Asami (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (Masanori Asami (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)) (112.70.9.71 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ryulong(琉竜) changed ja:Ryuku Arc of Japanese "Wikipedia" too. However, Ryulong(琉竜) had written the unnatural Japanese that it is clear to have depended on a free automatic translator as "私は英語のウィキペディアでよりよく連絡することができる" in the top of the User talk page ja:利用者‐会話:Ryulong of Japanese Wikipedia, so I'm afraid that Ryulong(琉竜) does not understand the "September 30, 2012 version" of ja:Ryukyu Arc enough.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ryulong(琉竜) must be ignorant and arrogant, or a plotter to edit the articles of wikipedia unlike the truth under an evil purpose. Ryulong(琉竜) is not qualified to edit "wikipedia" anyhow.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• No. This just shows that you are trying to disrupt multiple language projects all at once.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Bad article, but 100% notable topic, that a google search or scholar search, instead of personal attacks and fights would have revealed is not a content fork; the geographical islands arise in the geological arc-trench system. Please ask for help at wikiproject geology and close this time wasting content fork of your personal battles. Eau(W)oo (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But we can discuss the geological aspects within the context of the islands as a whole, or in regards to the Ryukyu Trench. This redirect was turned into an article solely because Masanori Asami wants the Ryukyu Islands article to exclude some of the islands because his preferred definition (causing disruption on both this project and zh.wiki) excludes the Osumi, Tokara, and Amami Islands, thus requiring another article to list them all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This requires mindreading or reading mind numbing nationalistic battles on Wikipedia. I am more capable of the former. Eau(W)oo (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, EauOo, since you seem the most knowledgeable editor on this topic, how about you write a paragraph or two in the article, possibly replacing the current bad content? Tijfo098 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, ha, I did write most of the current article. Feel free to revert. Eau(W)oo (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the problem. I forgot that as soon as I started editing the article, Ryulong jumped in with his half of the nationalistic agenda, and I got an edit conflict and did not add the tie in paragraph, left the window open, waiting for the most important geology to get done, then closed the window without adding it. I was thinking the article was okay, but it's a little stub, and still better mention such an important topic, then leave it empty. Eau(W)oo (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed Asami's "Amami Islands are not part of the Ryukyus according to Japan" footnote and fixed the romanization in the lede. I do not see how that is the "nationalistic agenda".—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ryulong, do you want to transform the article on the Islands in something resembling Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc? I suspect not. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I simply thought that the article on the geographic entity could also serve to include the proper information about their geologic origins.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ryukyu Islands, which already covers the relevant information perfectly well in coherent English. Agree that salting is probably a good idea. --DAJF (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot find the word "trench" anywhere in the article. Geology is not relevant to the discussion of a subduction zone since when? Eau(W)oo (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc[edit] Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc after had made this board for deletion of Ryukyu Arc. The editing of substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc contradicts the proposal for the article deletion. That means the withdrawal of the proposal by Ryulong(琉竜).(Masanori Asami (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply] (notice) After Ryulong(琉竜) had begun to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc, User:EauOo moved page Ryukyu Arc to Ryukyu arc.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply] Ryulong(琉竜) should apologize to me in having proposed the article deletion.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Weak keep. This article should look like the one on the Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc (Hellenic arc is perhaps a more accessible example.) I doubt you'll want all that technical stuff in the article on the Ryukyu Islands. Sources clearly exist though. Practically every hit in Google Books on "Ryukyu Arc" is in a technical publication about tectonics or geology. I can spam you with some links here, but you can just click on the search link at the top of this AfD. The only reason my !vote is "weak" is that there isn't much content in this stub yet. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From my experience a volcanic arc like this one includes more than just the islands. I don't know anything about this volcanic arc but I wouldn't doubt there are seamounts within it, which wouldn't be part of the Ryukyu Islands. Volcanoguy 06:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This paper clearly mentions seamounts in the Ryukyu Arc. Volcanoguy 07:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Volcanoguy above. "Arc" in this context is a geoscientific technical term and not synonymous with the just the island chain. An article expansion looks like it's needed to make this clear, though. IMO, WP:NPOV are a separate issue (possibly warranting protecting the article), but not relevant to (nor good grounds for) a delete proposal, and not actually proposed here anyway. DanHobley (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep this is nothing to do with which country controls the islands, but a geological feature. If it was not for the existence of the subduction zone here, the island of Taiwan would not be above sea level! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete for the same reason as Ryulong--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment But Ryulong is wrong, and it appear he realizes that the Ryukyu arc is a subduction zone, which is not mentioned in the article on the islands, and Ryulong, above, suggests adding the necessary level of detail, say six solid paragraphs or more on geology, to the Islands article is not a good idea. So, for the same reason that is wrong? Eau(W)oo (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawn. Sorry.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No prob., very hard to read and follow. Eau(W)oo (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've read through this carefully and now I agree with User:EauOo.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 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.