Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Ambassador to North Korea

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 rename or merge. There is at any rate no consensus to delete the article outright; the solution to the problem posed by the article title can be found by editorial means. Sandstein 05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Ambassador to North Korea[edit]

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

Erroneous article. There is not, nor ever has been, such a position as United States Ambassador to North Korea. Nor is there likely to be such a position in the forseeable future, given the state of relations between the United States and North Korea. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move. It is beyond me why the article should be deleted when it could simply be renamed. Even the infobox has the correct title. See Stephen W. Bosworth and [1]. I think we can do a WP:SK here and rename it from "ambassador" to "Special Representative". --Pstanton (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is moved, the correct title should be "Special Representative for North Korea Policy", according to the reference given by the contributor above. But he is not a representative TO North Korea. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like "Diplomatic relations between the United States and North Korea." This is the topic of the article. Leaving the other title as a redirect and a item on templates is fine. When people want to know about the non-existent ambassador they will be directed to the place where they will get the correct information. BigJim707 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an existing article North Korea – United States relations. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is mainly about the history of the relationship, bad as that has been. This article is about the formal diplomatic relationship. I guess you could merge this one into the other as a section at the end, but I think this one can stand on its own. BigJim707 (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to North Korea – United States relations because while the Ambassador article includes some interesting info (the Swedish involvement, the special envoys) it really belongs in the more general article. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 08:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge - The article should be renamed to Special Representative for North Korea policy which is the actual title of the post. If we merge it into North Korea – United States relations we may need to split it off into a seperate article later, which is fine. --Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a merge per TreasuryTag. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Wikipedia's policy on article titles says that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title but instead should use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Ambassador sounds like the most frequently used term for this sort of position, but since the sources so not use that word, I propose a rename to "Special envoy" or "Special representative". I oppose a merge because the subject is independent of issues of US/NK relations; the position is notable in its own right. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (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.