Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Korea–Serbia 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. v/r - TP 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

North Korea–Serbia relations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:GNG. this article is more about yugoslavian- north Korea relations, than Serbia. Fails WP:GNG. Section on trade appears pure original research. Serbia is one of many countries to condemn nuclear tests, nothing surprising. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 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) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - I don't love these articles, but this is pretty much IDONTLIKEIT defined. The nominator should give these nominations a miss. Sources are showing, that's enough. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * did you even look at the article? There are only 2 sources showing for condemning nuclear tests. When almost every country does. Are there sources covering state visits, trade, aid between the 2 countries? Please show evidence of actual Serbia -north Korea relations, otherwise your !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article needs some tidy-up and possible updating, but the content is a valid discussion of the relationship between Serbia and North Korea. I am tagging it to WP:Korea and WP:Serbia as they will be more knowledgeable about in this proposal. NealeFamily (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * being a "valid discussion" does not mean it's notable.LibStar (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * comment both of the above !votes fail to provide any sources to establish WP:GNG. nor do they address my other concern that this article is more about Yugoslavia North Korea relations. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Foreign relations of North Korea and Foreign relations of Serbia, with a redirect to the former. Not notable enough for an independent article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - 40 years with a close relationship, between Yugoslavia to Serbia and PROK on the other side. Sounds notable to me. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the length of the relationship does not confer notability. please provide sources of actual relationship. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge - Back when serbia was part of communist yugoslavia there were consistent ongoing relations between the two, as Bearian mentioned above 40 years is quite a great deal of time for relations to form, granted its slowed in the last 20 years since Yugoslavia's fall, the topic itself is notable, a merge would be fully acceptable and practical, though with reference improval if someone has any to share the topic could be easily salvaged. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment none of the keep !voters have supplied evidence of significant coverage in third party sources as required for WP:GNG. I'm still waiting. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bilateral relations articles have been consistently kept at AfD, and are considered to be part of the "gazetteer" part of Wikipedia's mission. I.E., they are "automatically notable", or as close to it as any subject can be - the sources in the article currently are, in fact, sufficent. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * no, over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. they are not inherently notable. there are a mere 2 sources describing Serbia's condemnation of north korea nuclear tests. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My observation has been that they tend to be kept, and they should be kept as part of Wikipedia's gazetteer remit. Are there only two sources? WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * i have done extensive searches for sources and cannot find anything, as a keep !voter the onus is on you to fix ut and find actual sources. This whole AfD demonstrates a complete lack of sources because none of the keep !voters can find a thing. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 21:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist rationale - Would like to see more discussion on the sources used in the article as well as the availability of other sources. &mdash;SW&mdash; spout 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can understand such a topic 'has legs' because of its international scope. International relations can hardly escape the news radar, can they? A request for expert help, or more references at least, would be a better solution to this problem. The existing sources are poor, but then so are the sources in almost all the other diplomatic relation articles at the moment. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * again another keep !vote without a shred of sources supplied. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. just because other similar articles are poorly sources is really a very weak reason for justifying keep for this one. this article has been listed for over 2 weeks and not 1 person can find additional sources. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made my argument quite clear. As Bushranger has said, there is general consensus on WP that these international relations articles are likely to be 'notable', because of the nature of the subject. WP:GNG says "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Are you seriously suggesting there is no likelihood of finding IRS about the subject, in Serbo-Croat or another language? Sionk (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * quite simply, there is no inherent notability to bilateral articles, instead of saying there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, show some. I doubt any of the keep !voters have spent even 5 minutes searching. But happen to turn up and say WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't fancy answering my question then? Continually repeating the same response hardly moves things forward. Sionk (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

didn't fancy looking for sources as what is normally required to show a poorly sourced article as notable? is it because there aren't any? LibStar (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a 'No'. Sionk (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So you admit there are no additional sources?LibStar (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. While there definitely is not inherent notability for bilateral relations articles, this one appears to be substantial: during the communist period in Yugoslavia, there were substantial ties between the countries (unlike Warsaw Pact states, North Korea wasn't a threat to Tito), and as Serbia is the successor state to Yugoslavia, it would be silly to have one NK-Yugoslavia article and another NK-Serbia article.  Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * again not one source provided. There are separate articles for predecessor states, eg Japan–Soviet Union relations. far from silly. LibStar (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Badgering doesn't seem to be working. If the countries involved are bigger than a breadbox and if there are sources showing, the nominator would be advised not to waste our time with these nominations, consensus being what it is. Yes, most of them are pretty bad in their current state. I wish people wouldn't bother to create them unless they were gonna do a good job of it. But as topics? Encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * have you bothered to look for sources? LibStar (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. Nobody has demonstrated significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  Sources about North Korea–Yugoslavia relations are not relevant.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree partially, although I still support the merges to the "Foreign relations of X" articles as I said above. But sources about North Korea-Yugoslavia relations are relevant...to a hypothetical article about historical North Korea-Yugoslavia relations. And given the amount of sourcing there is for that historical relationship, that article should probably be created, since notability is not temporary. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course: but they are not relevant to this article or this discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete—Simply because I don't think that relations between these two countries have been notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Even casting a very wide google net, nothing significant showed up.  The subject is already covered in Foreign relations of North Korea, but interestingly, there is no back reference in Foreign relations of Serbia, which one would expect if the countries had any notable dealings.  There's really nothing worth merging here, so in my opinion, deletion seems like a reasonable solution.  I take a very dim view of any "x is inherently notable" arguments in general, and the rest of these arguments seem like paraphrases of WP:OSE.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 01:31, 11 April 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.