216:
evaluated for their notability. The problem here is not with the existence of these kinds of article, it's that the editor who created them obviously took no interest at all to insure that only those which were notable and interesting were put up.
399:
Does anyone speak Korean or
Spanish? I doubt there would be any news in English. And I'm curious if Mexico has an embargo against North Korea like the rest of the world does. That is a relationship the article should have mentioned in it.
312:
If there was much of a relationship, there would certainly be a reaction from the United States; for obvious reasons, Washington does not want a North Korean presence on the Rio Grande.
161:- Yet another of these articles which have, essentially, a big empty at their core. The article fails to show in what way relations between Mexico and North Korea are notable.
94:
89:
98:
81:
127:
331:
384:
85:
355:- relations with NK are more likely than not to be notable, given that country's pariah status, but significant coverage is lacking here. -
142:
444:
423:
391:
361:
346:
321:
304:
287:. This one's interesting- there's a lot of chatter on the web about something but, when you dig down, there's nothing even resembling a
275:
236:
230:
197:
180:
174:
152:
63:
77:
69:
206:
No, just as it's fallacious to argue that every bilateral relations article is inherently notable, it's also wrong to delete them
270:
246:
17:
291:- the odd conspiracy theory and a few passing references to meetings between ambassadors and such like, but nothing tangible.
134:
although North Korea has an embassy in Mexico, there appears no significant coverage of any relations except this one article
377:
459:
36:
458:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
440:
250:
226:
170:
370:
245:- No, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater: some of them actually have a point. Would you call
299:
254:
221:
165:
264:
317:
193:
436:
135:
56:
148:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
431:
since i find no articles in either english or spanish in reliable sources that discuss this
401:
292:
356:
258:
138:
342:
313:
189:
49:
288:
210:. Unfortunately, just as with every other article, they have to be seperately and
144:
115:
338:
257:
non-notable? (Granted, a lot of them are pointless, but not all of them…
452:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
369:
No third-party coverage of the actual article topic. --
122:
111:
107:
103:
141:
making comments about North Korea whilst in Mexico.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
462:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
188:the whole lot of these relations articles.
332:list of Korea-related deletion discussions
326:
137:. other than that coverage seems to be of
330:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
247:Canada - United States relations
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
78:Mexico–North Korea relations
70:Mexico–North Korea relations
479:
455:Please do not modify it.
445:22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
424:23:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
392:19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
362:16:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
347:14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
322:13:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
305:11:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
276:09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
237:09:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
198:07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
181:06:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
153:05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
64:00:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
251:British-Irish relations
260:DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)
255:Japan-Korea relations
44:The result was
360:
349:
335:
470:
457:
420:
417:
414:
411:
408:
405:
389:
382:
375:
359:
336:
302:
297:
273:
272:(What I've done)
267:
261:
241:(edit conflict)
235:
179:
125:
119:
101:
60:
53:
34:
478:
477:
473:
472:
471:
469:
468:
467:
466:
460:deletion review
453:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
385:
378:
371:
300:
293:
271:
265:
259:
233:
218:
177:
162:
139:Hillary Clinton
121:
92:
76:
73:
58:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
476:
474:
465:
464:
448:
447:
426:
394:
364:
350:
324:
307:
281:
280:
279:
278:
239:
225:
201:
200:
183:
169:
132:
131:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
475:
463:
461:
456:
450:
449:
446:
442:
438:
437:Bali ultimate
434:
430:
427:
425:
422:
421:
398:
395:
393:
390:
388:
383:
381:
376:
374:
368:
365:
363:
358:
354:
351:
348:
344:
340:
333:
329:
325:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
306:
303:
298:
296:
290:
286:
283:
282:
277:
274:
268:
262:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
238:
234:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:Ed Fitzgerald
215:
214:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
182:
178:
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:Ed Fitzgerald
160:
157:
156:
155:
154:
150:
146:
143:
140:
136:
129:
124:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
454:
451:
433:relationship
432:
428:
402:
396:
386:
379:
372:
366:
352:
327:
309:
294:
284:
266:(talk to me)
242:
220:
219:
213:individually
212:
211:
207:
185:
164:
163:
158:
133:
57:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
357:Biruitorul
301:You rang?
295:HJMitchell
314:Mandsford
190:JBsupreme
397:QUESTION
380:Squadron
208:en masse
128:View log
310:Comment
243:Comment
145:LibStar
95:protect
90:history
429:Delete
367:Delete
353:Delete
285:Delete
186:Delete
159:Delete
123:delete
99:delete
46:delete
419:Focus
387:Raven
289:WP:RS
126:) – (
116:views
108:watch
104:links
52:Jamie
16:<
441:talk
373:Blue
343:talk
339:PC78
328:Note
318:talk
194:talk
149:talk
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
253:or
59:S93
443:)
345:)
334:.
320:)
249:,
229:/
196:)
173:/
151:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
48:.
439:(
435:.
416:m
413:a
410:e
407:r
404:D
341:(
337:—
316:(
269:|
263:|
231:c
227:t
192:(
175:c
171:t
147:(
130:)
120:(
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.