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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to North Korean nuclear tests

[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2013 North Korean nuclear test

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the September 2016 North Korean nuclear test, these are all cases of the same boilerplate condemnations. They all reduce to the same sentence: "International reactions to the year North Korean nuclear test were nearly unanimous in their condemnation and denunciation of the test." The rest is belaboring. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried looking for differences in the responses of key players like Russia, China, South Korea and the US, but honestly, it's a major deja vu: the response is pretty much always the same. Russia and China strongly condemn and possibly support sanctions, while South Korea and US flex their military muscles in response. Perhaps there is some minor merit to seeing that the responses HAVEN'T changed rather than that they have. But the articles for the tests themselves all have key summaries of reactions already. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically per the argument I provided at the AFD leading to this one. I planned on creating a discussion on the remainder of the "reactions to...articles" for the various N. Korean nuclears tests after gauging the community's consensus on a single article. Seeing how it was almost unanimously deleted and these articles are not uniquely different, the conclusion should be the same.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiversity. Could be original research falling under a variety of disciplines. Michael Ten (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These kind of articles which simply collate cherry-picked quotes from national governments (does each government really deliver only a single pithy sentence on whatever the topic is? - of course not. There are all kinds of complex reactions, and the context in which they occur is important) are useless and unencyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. If there is anything of significance here (I do not think so), this should be included to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Could never be complete with subjective entries and content. Agree with Nick-D, "useless and unencyclopedic" collection of comments. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page was created to declutter the 2009 original 2009 North Korean nuclear test page but just getting rid of this stuff instead is probably a better idea. As others have said the contents can never be complete and really don't provide any useful information. Mtpaley (talk) 13:23, 8 November 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.