Talk:2016 North Korean floods

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

Recent re-direct to Typhoon Lionrock

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I strongly believe this event is notable enough to warrant its own article. There are stand-alone flood articles with way less casualties and destruction than this article. Also, see 2012 North Korean floods, 2007 North Korean floods and 2006 North Korean floods. Why should these flooding events have their own page, but not the 2016 one? The 2012 North Korean floods were caused due to Tropical Storm Khanun (2012), however no merger has been made.

Typhoon Lionrock is directly linked to these floods but I still believe the flooding is so significant it deserves its own article rather than a section of the Tyhoon Lionrock article.

Please do not blank the page again unless a consensus is reached on the issue. For the meantime, users should focus on improving this article as we learn more about the impact of the flooding. GWA88 (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree it warrants its own article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic