Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korea-Russia 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 06:57Z

[edit] South Korea-Russia relations

South Korea-Russia relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Ridiculously specific. Tagged as WP:CSD for lack of context, but I could not in good conscience nuke it for that. But honestly. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral for now Keep - I'm not sure why this article is any more "ridiculously specific" than the similar articles in the series detailing relations with China, India, Japan, Poland and the United States. While the existence of the series is not in and of itself justification for this article, I need to see a more compelling argument for deletion than "but honestly." Otto4711 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Changing opinion to keep based on improvements to article since nomination and no stated reason for deletin. Urge nominator to withdraw the nom. Otto4711 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: Proposed for deletion less than four hours after it was created. I'm a deletionist, and even I think this is a bit harsh. Assume good faith and give the creator a few days to expand it, why don't we? - Chardish 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per User:Chardish. I do not see what is so "ridiculously" specific (the fact that it's SK and Russia or the content of the article). The article has, moreover, been expanded with sourced content since AfD nomination. Maybe tag the article with {{underconstruction}}... Black Falcon 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As above. LordAmeth 09:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Biophys 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article needs a lot of sourcing, but it certainly has encyclopedic merits and is actually a very good start. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This topic is both notable and interesting, and I really can't see why it should be deleted. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, especially as there are exactly parallel articles on other pairs of countries. The article is notable and contentful, and merging it with something else as a last resort is impossible due to volume considerations. So keep. But it has to be categorized extensively. Colchicum 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep. Very Very interesting, excellent information. Fenixasin 2:35, 11 February 2007 (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.