Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Tibet

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, discussion regarding potential merge to Arunachal Pradesh can proceed on the talk page but the consensus is to keep the information. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Tibet

This is not a clearly defined geographical term in English, thus not notable. The article gives two conflicting definitions, without proper sources. —Babelfisch 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Subs. MER-C 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt is the translation from chinese sources.I wish we keep up this article to represent the chinese view of this territories.Furthermore Arunachal Pradesh isn't neither a english definiton,It is of sanskrit.--Ksyrie 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of whether this is a currently defined geographical space. Appears to have a historical existence and could potentially be expanded with information about its history. A geographic or political region is notable. I'm no expert on this so happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. MLA 11:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet is just a Chinese name for that piece of land. The region is disputed between India and China and it makes no sense to have 2 articles on the same topic. --Incman|वार्ता 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arunachal Pradesh has no relevance to this is as it is a fully recognised state in India whereas South Tibet is not. Could this article not perhaps be merged with the main Tibet page? Tangerines 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis did you jump to that conclusion? The article itself says that "it roughly corresponds to the presently Indian-administered state of Arunachal Pradesh". Therefore, Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet have the same history, geography, demographics and culture. --Incman|वार्ता 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arunachal Pradesh. South Tibet is nothing but a Chinese term for Arunachal Pradesh. --Incman|वार्ता 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge,The Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet are not completely covering the same area,though somehow overlapping.The South Tibet is relatively smaller.Try to compare the two in the maps.--Ksyrie 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having looked at various articles, I am convinced that this article merits inclusion. The problem is that it needs some one who can provide a WP:NPOV to it and Arunachal Pradesh making clear what the current de facto position is, based on the ceasefire line after the Indo-Chinese War. The maps provided do not make this clear to me. The arguments about the adoption of Christianity whether freely chosen (my guess) or forcably (as some apparently allege), which appear in the Arunachal Pradesh talk page clearly show that the whole issue is one on which there are some very strong feelings. Peterkingiron 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need an expert,the Arunachal Pradesh is clearly larger than South Tibet,but I cann't find more verifiable information about it.--Ksyrie 07:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article as of now lacks references. The 3 URLs at the External links section are not really references/citations. --Ragib 08:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment,this article is composed based on various contents found in Arunachal Pradesh and Tsangyang Gyatso, 6th Dalai Lama.--Ksyrie 08:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All relevant content belongs in Arunachal Pradesh.Baka man 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Right now it seems that Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet are just duplicates of each other; if they do start diverging in the future, they'll probably end up as POV forks. So I say merge unless we can find some way of splitting the scope of the two terms that would result in more NPOV not less, like we've done for ROC / Taiwan. I'm open to ideas as to how this split could be carried out. -- ran (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSouth Tibet may be a older name than the Arunachal Pradesh,moreover,the two regions are not completely the same.I strongly disencourage to merge or delete.--Ksyrie 06:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if "South Tibet" is older than "Arunachal Pradesh"; in fact my impression is that "South Tibet" is just a name invented recently by Chinese activists. The PRC government would probably refer to it simply as "disputed territories along the eastern section of the Sino-Indian border", or "Indian-occupied territory south of the illegal McMahon Line", etc. -- ran (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The name of Arunachal Pradesh wont exist before 1960s,for this regions,there should be one name to describe it.Arunachal Pradesh is a very very new name and nothing to do with the its tibetan connection.And your claim south tibet was a chinese fabrication was totally ungrounded.At least South Tibet emphasised the historic connection for this regions while Arunachal Pradesh is tthoroughy an alien imposed name for its people who lived in these regions.--Ksyrie 21:41, 2 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.