Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean spelling alphabet


 * 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)

Korean spelling alphabet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not here. Viztor (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hangul. Not worthy of its own article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but the info might be useful there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are other articles like this, like Russian spelling alphabet, what's the difference, how is that one acceptable and this one not? Same kind of content. Teemeah 편지 (letter)  14:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hangul. Just because Russian spelling alphabet does exist, doesn't mean it should exist. I would support redirecting that page to Russian language as well. Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hangul. Not an independent topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Not here" is not a reason for deletion in 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)
 * 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)
 * Merge to Romanization of Korean. This article and my proposed target are incredibly small. There simply isn't sufficient content to justify two separate articles. ℯ xplicit 12:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.