Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace Treaty with North Korea

• * Comment: Thank you for Relisting discussions and guiding us about Wikipedia
  policy on content forks, Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment We already have Korean reunification which covers this topic. This BALLy essay is not needed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is, as far as I can tell from looking for sources, no peace treaty signed between anyone and North Korea. And the title itself takes an inherent point of view. A treaty, by definition, is between more than one party, but this title only mentions one party. Is it supposed to be about a peace treaty between North Korea and Papua New Guinea, or maybe Gabon, or who? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please refer to the initial version of
  peace Treaty attached between U.S. and North Korea: Agreed Framework
  
  

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]

• Delete - Just cannot overlook the
  WP:CRYSTALBALL we would need to use to support keeping this article. This is an essay on a hypothetical scenario and a disorderly one at that; too many opinions and topics are covered (inadequately). Please do not merge or redirect this essay to Korean reunification for there is no benefit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 Korea

• Option 1 Between
  DPRK and South Korea
  - backed by China & U.S. because North and South would be the main states
• option 2 Between
  U.S. is practically related to this subject after 1950 Korean War
• Option 3 Between
  U.N was the actual signed party of 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement

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]

• • Comment Thank you for your feedback, YES, It is quite related with North Korea–United States relations, however from my understanding, North Korea–United States relations is hard to cover all of this topic as the prevalent nuclear & ICBMs of North Korea are the global issue. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  talk) 20:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • ' Comment: Please understand that I am one of the people who is fear for the accidental nuclear war. As some experts said, North Korea would be the most potential place cause global war threatening the safety to all of us. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:38, 12 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 but remove 99% of content. The peace treaty itself is notable, but there are only few sentences about it (and one table). It seems the rest of the article is off topic, poorly organized essay/fork of the North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, plus some POV rants/points. All that junk needs to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What peace treaty is notable? The only international agreement that is written about in the article is the Agreed Framework, about which we already have an article. There is no peace treaty. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Hmmm, if they are the same then merge (if anything) and redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 14 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
    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.