Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hangul consonant and vowel tables

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 keep. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hangul consonant and vowel tables

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whole tables of syllables are unnecessary for the reader to grasp the idea of Hangul. This article could be replaced simply by stating in Hangul that there are 11 172 syllable blocks. Pokajanje|Talk 17:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Ridiculous! Why would you AfD-ize an article with about 10,000 unique syllable blocks? m'encarta (t) 14:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not about size, but notability. This is not a notable topic. There is nothing in this article that is not covered in Hangul, save the tables of syllables, which are not necessary and can be replaced by a simple number. Pokajanje|Talk 19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The syllable tables are extremely helpful to those who are unfamiliar with the Korean script in explaining how the syllables are formed in Hangul. Abstrakt (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is already explained. See Hangul#Morpho-syllabic blocks. Pokajanje|Talk 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason not to include the tables: that's what WP:NOTPAPER is about.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason not to include. The subject is redundant; the formation of the syllables has been explained in the main article. Pokajanje|Talk 23:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Syllable tables are noteable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why. Claims without evidence are nothing. Pokajanje|Talk 18:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Needs to be sourced. Somebody please do that. No opinion regarding notability. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Syllable tables like that should not exist in an encyclopedia. --Müdigkeit (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure of the relevance of this argument at first, but I think I get it now. Something like this might be appropriate as an appendix in Wiktionary. Pokajanje|Talk 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment needs a better lede explaining what this is and how to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 September 2012

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.