Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North Korea crisis

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 North Korea crisis

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

Short version: no reliable sources have used the exact term "2017 North Korea crisis".

Long version: top three hits in my Google search for "2017 North Korea crisis":

BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39750240 - North Korea crisis: North in another 'failed' missile launch
The First Post: http://www.firstpost.com/world/north-korea-crisis-us-warns-of-military-action-at-united-nations-security-council-emergency-meeting-3780791.html - North Korea crisis: US warns of military action at United Nations Security Council emergency meeting
The Diplomat: http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/north-korea-crisis-hits-asias-biggest-economies/ - North Korea Crisis Hits Asia’s Biggest Economies

No mention of the exact term "2017 North Korea crisis" in those unquestionably reliable sources. I don't think this is WP:COATRACK-ery or Wikipedia:SYNT-istry.
It appears to be a term that hasn't reached currency yet in reliable sources. While it may in future, no reliable sources have used the exact term "2017 North Korea crisis" Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title could have some issues or disagreements, but I think the article itself should be preserved. As quoted in the article, a number of notable former U.S. officials consider the situation as one of the most serious nuclear crises since the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is also one of the major concerns of U.S. President Donald Trump. The media coverage about the crisis is enormous now. I might agree with some alternative title for this article but oppose its deletion. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberdoomslayer could not have stated it any better. Add a ongoing event tag Hyungjoo98 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. CJK09 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to have information somewhere if it's so serious people in Guam are being advised about what to do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If your impetus for deleting a subject of lasting importance to US-DPRK relations pertains to the title, something that we can fix by simply moving the page, I really don't see why this should happen. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Obviously notable. Naming should be discussed outside of AFD - and might change as this develops.Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A truly puzzling Afd from an administrator, repeatedly pinning his Afd logic on the basis of poor search results for "the exact term '2017 North Korea crisis'" as if that's how we make decisions on notability, on the structure of the article name and exact syntactic matches thereof. Keep -- and per WP:COMMONSENSE, I might add. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - worldwide media attention, ongoing situation likely to have further developments and indeed with long-term implications. The title is a separate consideration but the event(s) that are discussed in the article, and likely to be included as time progresses, are incredibly strong reasons to retain. This is debate for article deletion though, not article renaming, and there is no reason to delete this article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Will have events happen in later time more than likely. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:21, 12 August 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.