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 no consensus. There's clearly no consensus here to delete this outright, which is mostly what AfD is concerned about. Additional discussions about possibly merging or otherwise reorganizing this and related articles can continue on the talk pages. --
RoySmith(talk)13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
"Not here" is not a reason for deletion in
Wikipedia:deletion policy and is incoherent as a rationale. I also do not believe that anyone this far in the discussion has read the source cited. This is not some indiscriminate spelling alphabet being made up on the spot. This is, according to the source cited, the one mandated by Korean law for radio operators, which it seems perfectly valid for a encyclopaedia to document for readers. Ironically, this article, citing the regulations for radio operation on a government WWW site in its first edit, is better sourced than our
SKATS article has been (sourced to a personal WWW site whose owner died) since 2006. For those now looking, you want Table 4 in Annex 1 of the cited regulations, as referenced by Article 4 of the regulations.
Uncle G (
talk)
06:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, somewhere. It's sourced, and it answers the question of what other languages do. This seems like reasonable encyclopedic information, not an indiscriminate collection. I don't think there's room to add it to Hangul. We do have a page for the NATO alphabet, plus a Greek-language one. We have extensive coverage of the evolution of
spelling alphabets; again, the page would be overloaded to add the non-Roman alphabets there. I'm thinking either keep the status quo or make one page for non-Roman alphabets. —C.Fred (
talk)
20:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
This isn't a romanization, though. It's a spelling alphabet, and the words used for the letter spellings (e.g.
기러기) are Korean.
Uncle G (
talk)
08:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Notable, article-worthy topic. None of the proposed merge targets are really appropriate (except I don't object to C.Fred's proposal of merging this to a page consolidating non-Roman spelling alphabets, but such a page doesn't exist yet.)
SJK (
talk)
09:45, 11 June 2019 (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.
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 no consensus. There's clearly no consensus here to delete this outright, which is mostly what AfD is concerned about. Additional discussions about possibly merging or otherwise reorganizing this and related articles can continue on the talk pages. --
RoySmith(talk)13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
"Not here" is not a reason for deletion in
Wikipedia:deletion policy and is incoherent as a rationale. I also do not believe that anyone this far in the discussion has read the source cited. This is not some indiscriminate spelling alphabet being made up on the spot. This is, according to the source cited, the one mandated by Korean law for radio operators, which it seems perfectly valid for a encyclopaedia to document for readers. Ironically, this article, citing the regulations for radio operation on a government WWW site in its first edit, is better sourced than our
SKATS article has been (sourced to a personal WWW site whose owner died) since 2006. For those now looking, you want Table 4 in Annex 1 of the cited regulations, as referenced by Article 4 of the regulations.
Uncle G (
talk)
06:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, somewhere. It's sourced, and it answers the question of what other languages do. This seems like reasonable encyclopedic information, not an indiscriminate collection. I don't think there's room to add it to Hangul. We do have a page for the NATO alphabet, plus a Greek-language one. We have extensive coverage of the evolution of
spelling alphabets; again, the page would be overloaded to add the non-Roman alphabets there. I'm thinking either keep the status quo or make one page for non-Roman alphabets. —C.Fred (
talk)
20:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
This isn't a romanization, though. It's a spelling alphabet, and the words used for the letter spellings (e.g.
기러기) are Korean.
Uncle G (
talk)
08:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Notable, article-worthy topic. None of the proposed merge targets are really appropriate (except I don't object to C.Fred's proposal of merging this to a page consolidating non-Roman spelling alphabets, but such a page doesn't exist yet.)
SJK (
talk)
09:45, 11 June 2019 (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.