Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel – North Korea relations


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 11:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel – North Korea relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

no diplomatic, trade, tourist relations. no visits/meetings of ministers/leaders, no agreements. "Korea has supplied missile technology to Israel's rivals, including Iran, Syria, Libya, and Egypt. Syria, which has a history of confrontations with Israel" is pure synthesis to say this equate to relations. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a notable relationship, even if hostile. Article just needs sources, which should not be hard to find. Borock (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * provide sources then. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added multiple sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  consulate  ─╢ 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Relations are not transitive. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean, please? I genuinely don't understand... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  hemicycle  ─╢ 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarityfiend does not agree that the enemy of my enemy is my friend or vice versa. History indicates otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - a relationship exists, and is manifested by non-recognition, refusal of entry to Israeli nationals, etc... In other words, even an empty set is still a set. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * not all bilateral relations are automatically notable, at least 100 of these have been deleted. Many countries do not recognise Kosovo, that does not mean automatic article about their non-relations. LibStar (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Article needs sourcing, but even as a hostile relationship it is notable relationship. And Kosovo is entirley different, most countries that do not recognise it are not so intensley hostile towards Kosovo they just do not recognise it for a range of different reasons, Kosovans are still free to trade and travel with most of these nations. DiiCinta (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep—I read the article expecting to !vote "delete" but then changed my mind. The two countries have an interesting and stormy relationship, with issues of hostile military action, munitions supplies and non-recognition. Seems notable to me. (I'll check out to see if I can find more sources...) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 16:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per the perfectly sensible proposed rationale of what is and is not notable bi-lateral relation, which even works for non-relations. Most if not all of this the referenced hostility is not unique to the Isreael-N Korea bi-lateral relation. Hundreds of countries have condemned N Korea, many do not recognise Israel, etc, etc. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the source I uncovered identifying North Korea as modelling their nuclear strategy on that of Israel, then? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  consulate  ─╢ 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anything about the relation as a topic does it? Like a lot of the content of these marginal br's, it is simply referenced info that mentions two countries that just belongs in more appropriate articles, such as North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike the other Foo-Foo relations, this is actually a real issue. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The ten North Korean nuclear advisors to Syria getting killed in the Israeli airstrike pretty well sealed it for me. Relations don't always have to be friendly, or even direct.  Mandsford 01:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Finding a source for this is easy: Israel's quest for recognition and acceptance in Asia This source details explicit negotiations between the two countries. I found it on the first page of hits when using the obvious keywords israel north korea in Google Books.  The failure of other editors to find obvious material of this sort shows the level of competence with which these topics are being addressed.  WP:POINT seems applicable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what does it say then? Anybody who has been involved in these Afds knows that the deletion side is usually a little more nuanced than 'there are no sources'. I note that the book is about Asia, so do we know have to also have an Isreal-Asia article too? MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what does it say then? If you click on the link provided, you can read quite clearly what the source says. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  prorogation  ─╢ 13:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant what does it say that shows the notability of this relation specifically? Where you or Warden presumably see a book discussing a notable bi-lateral relation, I see a book about the whole USA-Israel-Middle East conflict, where NK-Israel negotions are just a small but inseperable part. I don't think this article being kept just to record the specific bits where they talked brings any benefit to the recording of the wider topic it covers. Russia and the Arab–Israeli conflict is an example of a better way to do that if people think there is enough material here on NK's role in that conflict. Infact, there doesn't seem to be any sources offered up here or that were already in the article that wouldn't be better placed in a North Korea and the Arab–Israeli conflict article, even the parts where NK models its nuclear posture on Israel, or the air force strike in Syria, are better explained in that context, rather than in just another random b-r article. Given the fact they are openly hostile, what other sourced aspects of the relation are even going to exist? It would be fantastic to think there are other aspects to it, but I have my doubts. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of the following text do you think is not about the relationship? "A [US] State Department official said, [...] We believe that meetings between representatives of Israel and North Korea will not be useful. [...] While Peres tended to support the Foreign Ministry's attempt to engage in a meaningful dialogue with North Korea, Rabin categorically rejected the move [...] and informed the Cabinet that he was completely displeased with the contacts initiated by the Foreign Ministry. [Israel's] contacts with North Korea were not given publicity in the beginning. However, when questioned by reporters regarding the economic deal, Peres revealed that North Korea had taken the initiative in these contacts and asked Israel for financial assistance in managing the gold-mining operation. When Pyongyang announced its intention to suspend its withdrawal from the treaty, Israel resumed its talks on bilateral relations. However, fear of US reaction continued to be a discouraging factor.  In a telephone interview with shalom futile, Peres said: I do not need a visa from the Americans to go to North Korea, but the Americans are in the midst of the negotiations with North Korea, and we should not barge in likeable in a China shop.  After all, we do not presume to replace America in global negotiations, and we do not have the means the United States as depression or career.  Therefore while we turn an alternative ear to North Korea's proposals, we do not want a turn our back on the fact that the United States is the leader conducting these negotiations.  Israel's request of the to North Korea stop selling missiles to Iran had fallen on deaf ears in Pyongyang.  Moreover, officials in Pyongyang denied any connection with Jerusalem..." ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  stannator  ─╢ 14:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose post are you replying to? Because it certainly isn't mine. I said it covered the relation in the context of the middle east conflict. And nothing in those lines disputes this. MickMacNee (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know, I was replying to your post. The passage I quoted from the book clearly discusses the Israel-NK relationship. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Lord Speaker  ─╢ 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I never said it didn't did I? Who is not hearing who here? MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I have anything further to gain from engaging in this any further, especially since it looks like the article is definitely safe. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  estoppel  ─╢ 15:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. You were wasting both our time with these nonsensical questions cross-examining me on points I never argued for. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this is more about the nonrelations between the two countries, but the sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources added and per TreasuryTag. Im only on my mobile connection today but will further improve the article with a Groubani style map on Tuesday. FeydHuxtable (talk)
 * Keep The leader of one nation calling another nation part of an axis of evil, shows a notable relationship.   D r e a m Focus  20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep relations covered by reliable sources... hostile relations definately had a lot of sourrces so worth an article.. Arskwad (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources show coverage to provide notability under current policy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2010 (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.