This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
A controlled demolition wouldn't damage the surrounding area. North Korean officials called for the building to be destroyed this in a show of force.[1] ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 10:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Mccunicano: We don't need a separate article though. See WP:NOTNEWS. This article is so short, all of the details can be included here. gobonobo+c 10:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't know what 'this isn't routine news' means. Policies apply equally to all pages. The paragraph or two that can be written about the destruction of the building can easily fit on this article, which is about the building itself. Also, how is "bombing" a neutral way to describe this, when the building is entirely within North Korea and has been unoccupied since January? gobonobo+c 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS could apply to the other article. It's not: 1. original reporting, 2: routine news, 3.a "who's who" article, or 4. a diary. Bombing is based on English language sources referring to the building's destruction as a bombing per WP:NPOVNAME. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 10:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
That policy is broadly used to prevent us having articles for every news story. What can we say about the building's destruction beyond, 'they were mad' and 'they blew it up'? The context already exists in this article and at North Korea–South Korea relations. Most sources are using the terms 'demolish' and 'blew up'. Bombing is not a neutral and makes it sound like a combat incident. gobonobo+c 11:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really hung up on the specific term used in the title, whatever news sources call it is what we should call it here. But it certainly wasn't it a controlled demolition. The building's destruction is a significant escalation in the tensions between the North and South. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Do you have a source for it not being a controlled demolition? I saw one source saying the windows of nearby buildings were shattered, but nothing can be concluded from that. gobonobo+c 11:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The Al Jazeera source said a neighboring building was heavily damaged and has video of the explosion and shockwave. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 11:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I'm seeing that. Could be chalked up to sloppiness or overkill, but still a "planned demolition". I'm sure we'll know more as the story develops. gobonobo+c 11:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I agree that one article is enough. The office existed for less than two years, and is notable for being built and for being blown up but not much else. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
