Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal leaders of North Korea


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Only the nominator advocated to delete the article and participants reached different conclusions on the sourcing. Suggestions to merge the article into Constitution of North Korea can occur on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Eternal leaders of North Korea
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is the first time I've ever done this, so please forgive me if I mess up. Most of this article is sourced from Wikisource, which is not a source. The only other mention was a very trivial mention of the subject in the middle of a sentence:

"The new constitution was adopted by the first session of the tenth Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) on September 5, 1998. Unlike the 1972 socialist constitution, the newer version has a preamble that codifies the signature identity of the DPRK as a theocratic Kim II-sung state: Kim II-sung, 'the founder of the DPRK and the socialist Korea:' is 'the sun of the nation' and 'the eternal President of the Republic:' The DPRK Socialist Constitution is the Kim Il-sung constitution.' Although nominally proposed by Kim Yong Nam (president of the Presidium of the SPA), the reelection of Kim Jong-il as chairman of the National Defense Commission (NDC) was legitimized by the father, as the son's 'election' was 'initiated and recommended by the great Kim II-sung, the of the Korean people in his lifetime.' The first session of the tenth SPA was said to be 'an epochal occasion in firmly defending and exalting the nature of our republic as the state of President Kim II-sung.''"

WP:SIGCOV requires significant, secondary coverage, for which this topic has none. If I made a mistake, or I'm in error, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Please forgive the newbie. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and North Korea. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: If you have the patience to load .kp sources, you'll find boat loads of propaganda about this. Outside of that, and . Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe documents stored on WikiSource that are copies of sources published elsewhere are fine. Here its citing constitutions which are primary sources and has issues there, but I don't think being on WikiSource makes the constitutions unreliable sources.
 * TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Problem is with North Korea, there usually isn't anything outside of primary sourcing, it's all government controlled media in the country. Some historic documents or the rare time foreigners are allowed in to report on things, both being the exception (The Voice of America was allowed in to witness a rocket launch probably in the last decade if memory serves, but that's not the norm). I'll see what else I can find, but most North Korean articles are usually permastubs, just given how hard sourcing is. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b Have you honesty read those sources you're citing? Both of them list the phrase "eternal leaders" exactly once, uncapitalized, as an object in a sentence. How is this not trivial? There's heaps of | secondary sources about North Korea. Is there a Wikipolicy that North Korea is an exception for notability and doesn't require secondary coverage?Stix1776 (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the current sourcing could maybe be improved but I think it's still a noteworthy topic. I can try to dig up more sources that prove this upon request toobigtokale (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToobigtokalePlease do. I looked and I'm unable to find it. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Various South Korean sources:
 * These articles from major SK news sources discuss the 2016 constitutional revision in the context of legitimizing the NK regime's succession
 * Hankyung from 2004, about Kim Jong Il
 * Tongil News from 2001
 * I think maybe one could argue that the topic could be merged to another page, but I'm fairly confident there's adequate sourcing on the topic to not have it be deleted. toobigtokale (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment while there's certainly reliable source coverage of the creation and use of the title,  which essentially boils down the adoption of hereditary power in DPRK, there doesn't appear to be anything that cannot be covered in Constitution of North Korea.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The first two articles don't even mention "eternal leader", and the last one just mentions it twice as predicate to a sentence, in different paragraphs. Not exactly notable.Stix1776 (talk) Stix1776 (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: That's an article created long ago and it's not of an unimportant topic - the notorious, world-known and unique North Korean personality cult and the Juche secular religion. Not to mention that by constitution, as part of this cult, North Korea is currently the only necrocracy in the world, thus the "Eternal President", "Eternal Leaders" thing. Also, there are way more unimportant topics that have their articles, like Generalissimus of the Soviet Union, for example, a pseudo-military rank created specifically for Stalin in 1945. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.