Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea

Project page has no substantial content, no listed members, and scope of the proposed group effectively duplicates that of Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/North Korea. Creator of the page is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might be worth creating a redirect at this title. Hut 8.5 20:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per above. MER-C 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This WikiProject is still under construction (please see here and here). Moreover, a WikiProject should be set up for North Korea because there is already a lot for WikiProject Korea to do, and they may not really have enough time to care about the pages related to North Korea. -- LS C HIST (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't related to the state of the page, it's that there is no need for such a page, as it clearly duplicates the North Korea working group. If the Korean Wikiproject does need to be split - something that would require a discussion - then an appropriate thing to do would be to move the working group on North Korea to form a new Wikiproject, not start a new project from scratch. Hut 8.5 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the North Korea working group, they do not have a clear scope, and moreover the tasks listed do not cover all the things on Wikipedia that are related to North Korea. Therefore, we need a proper WikiProject on Wikipedia specifically for North Korea, like what we have for other sovereign states. -- LS C HIST (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per above. -- Scania N113 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per above. -- DATABASE-owenhwlo (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I suspect these two accounts are sockpuppets. Hut 8.5 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Give LS C HIST time to develop project. VictorianMutant (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In light of the response, I think I would like to change my opinion from Delete to Keep. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly new - accounting for it being incomplete. Collect (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just posted a new article there recently, and have reminded other portal visitors of a related discussion using "please see." Saebvn (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.