Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbia–South 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbia–South Korea relations

Serbia–South Korea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. only 32 Koreans living in Serbia [1] only 2 agreements, 1 to establish diplomatic relations, 1 for air transport [2]. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, implausive search term. Mergellus (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the only salient fact, that South Korea recognises Kosovo, is noted here. Other than that, nothing notable to see in this relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations is directly related to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Bilateral_Relations. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. Deletion could preempt the result of the discussion which could see the development of additional criteria for notability. You have ignored requests not to continue nominating these articles for deletion until the centralized discussion on notability has been resolved[3]. This behavior is rather disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, per Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Trivial, non-notable, subject; optimistic clutter. Dahn (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No indication that WP:N is, or ever will be, satisfied. No need at all for this article per WP:Summary style. Note to closing admin: The three "keep" votes are clearly invalid since the discussion is clearly not going to finish with a result any time soon, and it's already obvious that there would be no consensus for a subject-specific notability guideline that would modify, rather than interpret, the general notability criteria. Any such guideline would be based on deletion discussions such as this one. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2009 (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.