Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Goguryeo

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. Consensus is that this is a notable subject. Any POV issues can be resolved through editing. RL0919 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Goguryeo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The state is fictitious and not scientifically proven. Moreover, its existence is proved by reference to a Japanese document in the afterword of which it is written in English that this state never existed.

https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/154403/1/jor051_2_204.pdf An afterword quote that is written in English.

" Dr. Hino Kaizaburo published y1 Studyが瓦ogury∂-ｍｉｎｏｒ Ｋｉｎｇｄｏｍ『小高句麗國の研究J in 1984, in which he argued the existence of ａ Koguryominor Kingdom from 699 t０９１８in Liaodong province whose kings were of legitimate descent from Koguryo royalty. In this paper, the author attempts ａ close reexami nation　of the sources　on　which Dr. Hino゛ｓargument was based. As ａ result, he proves that in fact no source exists which positively affirms the ｅχistence of such a kingdom, and that on the contrary there are some facts that demonstrate that it could not have existed. "

Еxistence of the state by reference to a scientific document that refutes its existence. What is also a violation of the rule is not to bring to absurdity.Aek973 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is clear that the subject is a hypothetical kingdom. The fact that it appears, based on a closer examination of sources, not to have existed, does not make it deletable. It is clearly notable as the nom describes two sources discussing its existence. For comparison consider Atlantis, Shangri-La, all of the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken etc. etc. etc.. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that in the Balhae article it is used as a real state. In addition, the article itself does not indicate that it is fictitious, and also to prove its existence, a source is used that prove as he does not exist. This is a deliberate misrepresentation. Aek973 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aek973 - So edit it to be more accurate. WP:DIY is an important rule here on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Fictitious is the wrong word. The fact that a theory has been put forward by an academic scholar is sufficient to justify an article. However the arguments why the theory was wrong should also be set out in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Then provide these academic sources. The article has been around for many years - but no sources have been provided. Moreover, as evidence of existence, a reference is made to a work refuting its existence. Aek973 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has to provide academic sources. They need only provide sources that are typically reliable - a term which includes sources such as Encyclopedia or Newspaper articles as well as academic ones. FOARP (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you recommend me to edit this article? I know that this state did not exist - I have evidence that this state did not exist. I have provided this evidence. How should I describe a state that is proven to not exist?Aek973 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Little Goguryeo is a hypothetical state that supposedly existed in... between the years .... The existence of the state was first suggested by Prof. .... based on his interpretation of .... However, this has been proven not to be the case by Prof. .... based on evidence including ..... The state is now believed not to have ever existed." - it's pretty simple really. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent from the subject. The original scholarly paper by Dr. Kaizaburo, and the Korean and Japanese sources cited in the Naver Encyclopedia article discussing Little Goguryeo appear to be reliable and independent, at least from a quick glance. The fact that the state's existence has been disproven does not mean that it is not notable. Atlantis is a good example. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I already answered the rest. If this state is fictitious then it should not be used in the article Balhae as real and in the article Little Goguryeo it should be indicated that it is a fictitious state.

If you claim that this state really existed, then the description of the state should contain references to academic works confirming its existence. Moreover, they should be newer than works refuting the existence of this state. The article has been around for many years - but this has never been done. In all likelihood because these sources simply do not exist.

If they exist, then provide them now.Aek973 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out already, Wikipedia does not require that the subjects of its articles physically exist (or ever existed). Instead, we have articles on subjects that are notable and verifiable as subjects. Hence, we have an article on Atlantis despite the fact that Atlantis never existed and no-one now seriously believes it ever existed - instead we know that it is a subject given significant coverage in reliable sources. No-one here needs to prove to you that this hypothetical kingdom ever existed - they only need to show that it was discussed in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind that there would be an article on Wikipedia about a fictional state. However, I do not fully know the fantasy universe of which this state is - I do not know what kind of artwork this fictional state is based on and I am not obliged to search for those fantasies on which this fictitious state is based. This should be done by those who want to keep the article about this state as fictitious. Moreover, this article has existed for many years as an article about a real and not a fictitious state - which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. So this article should be deleted - and if someone wants to describe a fictitious state with that name, he must first create the article himself. And secondly, to prove the weight and significance of this fantastic universe. As for the case of Atlantis. Not all fictional universes have the right to be mentioned on Wikipedia - since a thousand universes are invented daily and Wikipedia WP:NOT Aek973 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aek973:, you are taking a possibility and making it an absolute. The source you cite against this kingdom says "...some facts demonstrate...", not "...all the available facts demonstrate..." or an equivalent. This is not enough to make the sweeping statements above that the existence was an impossibility. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aek973: I think you realize fully well that not all non-existent places (Atlantis, El Dorado, Camelot), places which may have at some point been associated with real ones (Tower of Babel), and places which were at one time thought to be non-existent (Troy), belong to an established fictional universe. There is no need for non-existent places to belong to a specific fictional universe created by an author. Besides this, you have not definitively proved that this place is regarded by the academic community as fiction the way that Atlantis is, merely that it MAY not have existed. If the original information on the page was outdated or inaccurate, it should be improved to include more recent and well-regarded sources. The article should not be deleted in its present state because you feel that it was inadequate when it was originally created years ago, pages are supposed to improve over time so naturally it should look worse back then as compared to now. However, it seems as though you may be using this deletion discussion as a vehicle to push your own personal beliefs about its historicity.IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia allows, and indeed needs, to have articles about mythological and legendary subjects which includes places and people which may have never existed but which nonetheless made a tangible cultural or intellectual impact. That said, the page does look as if it could use some improvement, — Preceding unsigned comment added by IphisOfCrete (talk • contribs) 00:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the theory that this state existed has been established as inaccurate by more diligent scholarship, this page should be edited to reflect that. However, even ludicrous theories are included on Wikipedia if they are shown to be independently notable (a la Ancient astronauts and Modern flat Earth societies).IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2020 (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.