Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-NK


 * 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   redirect to North Korean studies. Nomination to delete withdrawn in favour of redirecting to North Korean studies (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 01:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sino-NK

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable publication. Independent sources in the article are just in-passing mentions of the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  23:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  23:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep  - this is in part a vehicle for the editor who is a reasonably well recognised NK pundit and features others in a very small pool. I would say keep because the subject North Korean studies is far bigger than the little pool of scholarship, and this is as near a scholarly journal as yet exists in English (since most scholarship is in Korean University of North Korean Studies, Seoul; and Russian). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally my response to an argument like the above would be that perhaps we should merge this to the article on the editor, but given that there is no such article (and being only a Lecturer, chances are he would not meet WP:PROF), that is not an option. Apart from that, I don't see how the foregoing argument is policy based. The journal is very new (Dec. 2011), so creation of an article was probably premature. If sources come up in future, an article can be re-created, but at this point, it's just WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No he wouldn't meet WP:PROF. To be honest the above was a lazy response (AfD is where lazy editors come to zap other editors work right?) in fact this needs moving to a two line mention in North Korean studies. The subject area as a whole is notable. The creator User:Greenman100 also created Daily NK which is more notable than this one. If I had the energy to write the above I suppose I have the energy to create a stub for the article it should be a mention in. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done North Korean studies. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good job. I therefore withdraw my nomination to delete this article in favor of a redirect to North Korean studies. --Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2013 (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.