- 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. Even the latter editors who voted "keep" were concerned about content (including one saying "remove 99%" of it) and possible crystal balls, which leads me to conclude the best thing is to delete this now, without prejudice to restoring at a later date when events change. If anyone wants the content userfied, leave a note on my talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Peace Treaty with North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure WP:CRYSTAL. Already nominated per PROD and speedy, this article is merely a repeat of various speculations propounded because of WP:RECENT events. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note that WP:RECENT is no longer valid, and explain the cases of WP:CRYSTAL as speculation it is necessary to know for the contributors of this article. To generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, Can we please extend this AfD discussion for another seven day as some of the contributors of this article were not able to express their opinion? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A doubt about initial discussions about a peace treaty between US/UNC and North Korea-> Please see one of the latest example: the Statement From Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Press Release Date: 5 Sept 2017) [1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Thank you for the notice about the AfD - Peace treaty with North Korea - article and please understand that I have no objection whatever to the decision of ("WP:CONSENSUS"?) to Keep(or rename), merge(to other topic) or remove (to draft for improvement and Wikipedia:AFC process ), however I believe that this article has enough evidence below for the Wikipedia guideline, and I believe that it would be required to open the gate (enough time) of comments from the contributors of this article and North Korea Project participants who are interested in this topic.
It is my understanding about five suitability of this subject on Wikipedia.
- WP:NRVE There are significant independent coverage or recognition on this topic,
- WP:SUSTAINED This subject has a sustained coverage as an indicator of notability
Regarding the key word for 'Peace Treaty with North Korea', Appreciate User:Srich32977 for the links above
> About 1,500 results of news, 1140 results of Books , About 60 results on Scholar, 27 matching research articles and other sources
Regarding the suggested issues, ,
- WP:CRYSTAL explains "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." so an article is nor precluded a prior - it seems to be there are reference sources appropriate for passing the WP:GNG
From my understanding about the comment of USER: Escape Orbit and the Wikipedia suggestions are, WP:10YT, consensus can change there is no deadline and consensus can change by WikiGnome and Wikipedians instead of getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For the record, the topic itself is notable; the issue has been discussed since the 1950s and that has generated plenty of reliable sources. But this article is too essayish for me to consider advocating for keeping it. Should it be deleted, I hope the closer will consider it on the basis of the content of the article, not what the topic is. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that it could be appreciable to revise the subject(topic) appropriately based on the contents of the articles, because the substance of the whole contents contains, news, opinions and research results of the experts in the respective fields of North Korea nuclear and ICBM issues. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Strong Keep: I think there is sufficient evidence WP:NRVE of this topic and other current relevant topics in this encyclopaedia:
- compendium providing summaries from all branches of information. These several adjacent Wikipedia articles below regarding North Korea issues, is useful for the readers of Wikipedia because its one of the primary interests of the global community.
It proves that People desire to know the facts from fiction and to learn more details about it including the summary of books and scholastic writings on this topic.
List of North Korean missile tests , 2017 North Korean missile tests , North Korean August 2017 missile launch over Japan , 2017 North Korea crisis, Korean conflict, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction,
Japan-Korea relations,
Foreign relations of North Korea,
North Korea–United States relations, Gemvoice (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no realistic prospect of a peace treaty with North Korea as long as its provocative missile and nuclear tests continue and suggesting otherwise (as the article does in its very first sentence) points out this article as North Korean propaganda.Amyzex (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (by OP). Additionally, the article violates WP:NOTOPINION. That is, every speculation about what might happen is pure opinion by more-or-less informed commentators. There can be no facts about something that not certain to occur. (Also note how the articles uses the term "Peace Treaty" as a proper noun – this illustrates that it is not encyclopedic.) As NOTOPINION recommends, the material should go into Wikinews. To do this properly, the article should be deleted or made into a redirect to Korean conflict. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
, Keep , Rename and Keep - There are some issues with this article, but it could be amended later on. A fair share of information for global community without bias. I think it would be one of the most important contributions in Wikipedia. Regarding this topic, I can understand why North Korea developed nuclear weapons and why it is of interest by several international parties. Before then, I thought North Korea is actually preparing for a nucleus and there are still so many others who believe that North Korea wants to ignite the fuse of a nuclear War. Because there are lots of news articles that are from outside of the current situation :example today North Korea news: It’s ‘Begging for War’ I believe that the Public generally did not have time and energy to see articles from the actual experts on the North Korean nuclear issue and international law because we can only see the news on Internet and TV. Peace Treaty with North Korea: it is nothing new, but it is popular topic on news, newspapers, books and scholastic writings. I don’t see the evidence of violation of WP:NOTOPINION, but the topic supported by the experts and journalists on this matter and it would pass the WP:SUSTAINED with several references. D8jang (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[4] [5]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: The arguments to delete the article are very strong, since
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for possible future events. Those arguing for keep do correctly state that "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." The difficulty here is that the article is currently written in an inappropriate
essay style. I would like editors to further comment on the merits of these points as well as to consider the
policy on content forks and whether the content is more appropriate for a section of
2017 North Korea crisis or
Korean War. More discussion may help consensus to emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was the part of North Korea Nuclear deal. - page #3 , U.S. promised to provide North Korea with the formal assurance of peace and Security to North Korea. From my understanding, the current nuclear & ICBM issue would have been removed already, if the agreement was proceeded,
I was able to figure it out this information just only a few days ago because of the news release from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (Press Release Date: 5 Sept 2017) [1] [2] [3] [4]
- Delete It's not clear which peace treaty the article title is referring to. I suppose it should more accurately be titled
Possible Future Peace Treaties with North Korea Korea, but that would be silly.--Pontificalibus (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please refer that I summarized the opinions and topics on articles yesterday.
With the issue ofWP:CRYSTALBALL, the issue of WP:CRYSTALBALL raised last month August, because people (including myself) did not know whether there was already signed Initial Peace Treaty between U.S. and North Korea via Agreed Framework.
However, it is now we know the fact and so the issue ofWP:CRYSTALBALL can be cleared.
- Regarding the term about name of topic.
It's my understanding, concerning the motivation of the peace treaty : there is a clear consensus about the abandonment of Nuclear weapons and Chemical weapons of North Korea.
However, there are some suggestions of the peace treaty partner with North KoreaDPRK via experts in this field.
- That is the reason behind of the subject: [[Peace Treaty with North Korea],
Regarding the comment on Talk page of the changing name: Please refer to proposed subjects below
- Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula
- Diplomacy of UN to North Korea missile tests
- Options(Diplomacy) of U.S. to North Korea crisis
I believe that it would be hugely favorable for us to have one of the topics above on Wikipedia. There are several topics about North Korea missile tests & crisis on Wikipedia, but as far as I know, there is no space for the summarized advice and opinions from the global experts on this topic.
- Only for within the latest 24 hours, It is easy to find more than 50 reliable news and opinion articles about North Korea crisis, but it is difficult to see all.
As Wikipedia is one of the primary live Global Encyclopedia on Internet, it would be advantageous to have room for subject above on Wikipedia,
- Please refer to the three example subject of last 24 hours below. [5] [6] [7]
Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those three topics you mentioned belong in North Korea–United States relations.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, quite. I received a message on my talk page about this from the creator but still stand by my "delete" opinion. I also note that the message still didn't reply to my comment that a treaty needs more than one party. The article obviously refers to a non-existent treaty between North Korea and the United States, so why on Earth, unless the creator is under the impression that everything in Wikipedia is written from an American point of view, doesn't the title mention the United States? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ' Comment: Dear 86.17.222.157,
As per my kind reply message of your inquiry: '"no peace treaty signed between anyone and North Korea." : I would like to politely share the related factor, the initial version of the Peace treaty was signed between U.S. and North Korea.
Concerning "American point": there was no intention of this side, and so I updated my comment above for clarification: example names- including U.N and Korean Peninsula. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a highly important and notable topic and there is plenty of literature discussing the history and prospects. That literature can be documented factually. The article needs work to neutralize, as most new content does, but this is not an argument for not having an article. --JWB (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ** Comment - Regarding opinion from User:JWB and User:Piotrus, let me please add My two cents. To sum up my idea, I updated my first comment above Rename and Keep - Firstly, YES, this article required counterbalance, and I trust the power of millions of Wikipedia users who want to hammer this notable topic into the proper Wikipedia shape by freely editing the article- - Secondly, I was wondering if other articles on AfD can understand the Delete comment on this article, but I don't see that it is the objective with other few latter-day AfD articles with WP:CRYSTAL issues; Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, GW170817 - It seems like people believe that several reliable references could waive off the issue of WP:CRYSTAL. In my estimation, the choice of name is wrong, as there would be many people with a mindset: anti- North Korea(may be NOT South Korea) & hate Appeasements with DPRK, to minimize any negative impression with DPRK, I would like to suggest to change the name to something like: Peace Treaty for Korean War or End the Korean War and enables users to modify this article. D8jang (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As it stands, it is an article on a thing that doesn't exist. bd2412 T 22:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I said on the article's talk page: the article is speculative, not encyclopedic. The subject of the article does not exist. Discussion of proposals for such a treaty would fit better as parts of articles on the Agreed Framework and the Six Party Talks. NPguy (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kierzek (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Votes so far, to save folks the hassle of counting: Delete+Nom: 14, Keep: 5 + Keep but remove 99% of content: 1 Rwendland (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Glass Sphere. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There was an Agreed Framework between the USA and DPRK, but that has broken down, and there is no peace treaty in progress at this time. Any such peace treaty in the future is pure speculation. Natg 19 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2017 (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.