- 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. MBisanz talk 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Djibouti–South Korea relations
- Djibouti–South Korea relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. trade is minuscule. And there is no evidence of things that typically make a notable bilateral relationship like state visits, embassies, agreements or significant migration. LibStar ( talk) 04:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable relationship. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 16:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 16:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep volumne of trade between the two might be small but it's perfectly encyclopedic information.--
Prisencolin (
talk) 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- you have failed to address how this meets WP:GNG. "Perfectly encyclopaedic " is not the same as notable.
LibStar (
talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- The South Korean government published some documents on the relations.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- you have failed to address how this meets WP:GNG. "Perfectly encyclopaedic " is not the same as notable.
LibStar (
talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The article currently states, "Bilateral trade in 2011 amounted to $47,390,000 in exports, and $9,000 in imports." That's poorly phrased; I presume that South Korea exported $47.4 million of goods to Djibouti and imported $9,000 from Djibouti, but if so then Djibouti exported $9,000 and imported $47.4 million. But regardless, the only source cited in this article says nothing about those amounts, so this statement is unsourced no matter what it was supposed to say. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; no third party sources = no article. Sandstein 06:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not only is the Keep votes unconvincing, there has been consensus showing there is not automatic acceptance for each separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- This certainly could be sourced (search on The Economist here: [1]) Although expanding an article on the Economy of Djibouti or creating one on the aspirational Djibouti free trade zone would be more useful, imho. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:13, 14 August 2016 (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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Djibouti–South Korea relations
- Djibouti–South Korea relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. trade is minuscule. And there is no evidence of things that typically make a notable bilateral relationship like state visits, embassies, agreements or significant migration. LibStar ( talk) 04:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable relationship. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 16:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 16:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep volumne of trade between the two might be small but it's perfectly encyclopedic information.--
Prisencolin (
talk) 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- you have failed to address how this meets WP:GNG. "Perfectly encyclopaedic " is not the same as notable.
LibStar (
talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- The South Korean government published some documents on the relations.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- you have failed to address how this meets WP:GNG. "Perfectly encyclopaedic " is not the same as notable.
LibStar (
talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The article currently states, "Bilateral trade in 2011 amounted to $47,390,000 in exports, and $9,000 in imports." That's poorly phrased; I presume that South Korea exported $47.4 million of goods to Djibouti and imported $9,000 from Djibouti, but if so then Djibouti exported $9,000 and imported $47.4 million. But regardless, the only source cited in this article says nothing about those amounts, so this statement is unsourced no matter what it was supposed to say. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; no third party sources = no article. Sandstein 06:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not only is the Keep votes unconvincing, there has been consensus showing there is not automatic acceptance for each separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- This certainly could be sourced (search on The Economist here: [1]) Although expanding an article on the Economy of Djibouti or creating one on the aspirational Djibouti free trade zone would be more useful, imho. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:13, 14 August 2016 (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.