Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italy–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   no consensus. At least. I'm not calling it a keep consensus because there's a lot of hand-waving on both sides of the argument.  Sandstein  06:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Italy–North Korea relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:GNG. the relations are at bare minimum, mere recognition of existence which can be covered in one line in a foreign relations article. No evidence of substantial relations to warrant a article. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It makes more sense to include this info in each country's respective "Foreign relations of (country)" article than to have a specific one for this particular (non)-relationship. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. These X-Y Relations pages are contentious, please don't half-ass it if you wanna start one. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG easily as numerous books remark upon the fact that Italy was the first western country to establish relations with North Korea. Their diplomatic relations are covered in detail in sources such as this so demonstrating that this is yet another cookie-cutter nomination made contrary to our deletion policy. Warden (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've provided one source and no evidence of significant coverage and thus fails WP:GNG. 22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources available and the example I provided has a multi-page section about the topic, so passing WP:SIGCOV easily. Warden (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTBESOURCES. you have failed to list multiple sources, please list them as you are arguing for keep. LibStar (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Warden frequently asserts that there obviously must be sources without providing them. I don't see them here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with relevant foreign relations of X article. It only describes a single event, the opening of diplomatic relations, and it seems to fail WP:EVENT.  If more happens in the way of I-NK relations, then that would merit its own article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Warden is correct: Asia Times, BBC, Associated Press, |+Establishes+ties+with+Italy%2C+sends+out+feelers+to+other+countries&pqatl=google San Diego Tribune, and more.  Th e S te ve   00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Warden, and the fact that a Google Books search finds multiple references. -- 202.124.74.20 (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * please list these multiple references. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's not notable and it can be covered in the foreign relations article just fine. The article has no sources (vague reference to a NYT piece but it's not about these countries relations other than describing them together) and is one sentence. That's telling about the lack of meaningful relations discussion. Again, can easily be covered under the appropriate foreign relations of x article. TheSteve's "sources" only drive home the point... for example here's the BBC one from 1999: "We heard Pyongyang asked the German and Italian governments last month to allow it to send two more diplomats to the North Korean interest section in Germany." If that's your standard then apparently any mere mention is enough. Why is there a desire to have this particular article title when what little content of notability does exist is already nicely at home in Foreign relations of X? None of the 'sources' seem to indicate anything other than triviality. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And here's the 2000 Asia Times headline: Italy brings North Korea out of isolation - There are good and bad sources, but there are plenty of them.


 * Keep per Warden - unique can be notable in itself; there are plenty of possible sources. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * which plenty sources are you referring to? As an admin you should lead by example and list them. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - plenty of news sources in the Italian media. -- 202.124.73.101 (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTBESOURCES. you have failed to list multiple sources LibStar (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment All you cite-happy people should be glad to hear I have added 4 impeccable (ok, 3 impeccable and 1 so-so) references to the article in question.  Th e S te ve   10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The relations exist Uaer:Lucifero4
 * Keep per provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2012 (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.