Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Korean crisis

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 merge to North Korea in 2013. Other targets may also be suitable. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Korean crisis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is purely a recording of the news of 2013. It was obviously created in the expectation that something momentous was about to happen. However, nothing significant eventuated. The article remains inconclusive, consisting mainly of a timeline that peters out as tensions subside. The Korean conflict is an ongoing topic, and what happened in 2013 was relatively minor. Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you provide a valid criteria for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON? It certainly looks well sourced, and your reasoning seems to fall under WP:PPOV. Praemonitus (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . looks well sourced to me, but anyone can check whether original research is done.I don't have time to check the references. Thanks.--C E (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: The Korean crisis of 2013 lead to their third nuclear test and the closing of Kaesong. Do you not remember all of this developing? Thats like saying we should delete the Cuban Missile Crisis because nothing came out of it. 24.44.176.72 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: My criterion is notability as expressed in WP:NOTNEWS,WP:EVENTS. I am not questioning the sources. The nuclear test is covered in its own article, and Kaesong Industrial Region article has ample discussion of its temporary closure. (Note: the city of Kaesong was not closed.) As it is, this article mainly consists of a timeline garnered from the news as it happened, including some very minor incidents. Such incidents are routine in the ongoing Korean conflict. The Wikipedia article on the Cuban Missile Crisis was obviously written long after the event. I don't think anyone would write this article today.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete a chronology of incidents. The actual noteworthy incidents already have their own article. LibStar (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2013 in North Korea. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + Comment - It's important that an article about the Korean crisis in general be kept to give a broader context to things such as the nuclear tests and closing of Kaesong, but maybe it should be rewritten so that it can be, well, not a list of dates and events? Maybe if the page was written more like an actual article, rather than a list, it might be taken more seriously as an article? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 14:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2013 in North Korea (for anything that can be merged). That's basically what the article is, though only a small section of the year. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.