Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rieul (disambiguation)


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rieul (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unused disambiguation, they have different words, though very close. 333-blue 23:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TWODABS. Actually, it's the same spelling, but a hatnote in Rieul is just fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and copyedit - neither is a clear primary topic: Google search results first page gives a mixture; page hits on our articles in December were 77 for the bishop and 55 for the Korean character Noyster  (talk),  09:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have changed the hatnote on Rieul to offer a one-step link to the Korean character instead of two. I note that the dab page is also nominated for speedy deletion. Pam  D  12:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've declined the speedy. It's not clear cut enough for a speedy, as the !votes here indicate. Ged  UK  13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me, if we accept that the bishop is the primary topic. If anyone disagrees with that, then this is the wrong place for the discussion: there should be a WP:RM proposal to move Rieul to Rieul (bishop) or some other title, leaving Rieul free to be the dab page (if no primary topic) or the hangul (if it is agreed to be primary topic). But a dab page with "(disambiguation)" in its title, and which includes only the page at base name and one other page, is a clear case of an unnecessary dab page. I have cleaned up this dab page per WP:MOSDAB, where previously it had an unexplained piped link from a variant spelling not present in the target article (ie Rieul (hangul) does not mention "Reul" - perhaps it was just a typo in the original dab page creation along with bolding and piping). Pam  D  15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The typo did fuzzy it for me, however, this AfD has a keep and a delete, so it's clearly not clear enough for a CSD. Ged  UK  08:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only "Keep" so far is on the basis that neither is the primary topic - but at present the bishop is the primary topic. Any debate as to whether he is or isn't primary topic should be taking place elsewhere, like WP:RM. Pam  D  12:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete per WP:TWODABS, per ClarityFiend. if neither is primary then that should be decided by a RM, but I too am unconvinced by that argument.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 07:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Move Rieul (disambiguation) → Rieul and Rieul → Rieul (bishop). I don't believe that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. In addition, the disambiguation should include a see also for Saint-Rieul, which would bring it up to three links. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as I avidly considered this but was not certain how and where this AfD was going to go. Delete at best I suppose as I had waited quite some time to comment and I suppose deleting is best. SwisterTwister   talk  06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep due to lack of primary topic, and then list it at WP:RM if needed, or just boldly do the moves that Tavix suggested. Tito xd (?!?) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (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.