Talk:Rieul

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 15 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 5 7 23:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rieul (disambiguation) → Rieul
Rieul → ~~Rieul (bishop)~~ Rieul of Reims

– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rieul (disambiguation) was recently closed as "no consensus" on whether to delete the disambiguation. At the AFD there were a few people who remarked that there wasn't a primary topic for the name "Rieul." Since that's a question for WP:RM, I've decided to take it here and formally propose that the disambiguation take the base title due a lack of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of IIO's additions, I'm now supporting a move to "Rieul of Reims."-- Tavix ^(talk) 13:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sending an WP:APPNOTE to those who participated in the WP:AFD: 333-blue, Clarityfiend, Noyster, PamD, JohnBlackburne, SwisterTwister, and Titoxd. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Now that I think about it, there is no clearcut primary topic. (But I'll probably rieu this day.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support no primary topic, but there are two Saint Rieuls, I've just added the earlier one. The Riems bishop should move to either Rieul of Reims or Rieul (bishop of Reims) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: more contents added, which means more articles. 333 -blue 08:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@333-blue: you mean Support surely? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: oppose. 333 -blue 10:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@333-blue: sorry I don't get it you said "more contents added, which means more articles" - so how does more articles make the second bishop the absolute majority topic, rather than @Tavix: proposal. It seems like your comment is in favour of Rieul of Riems not being the only subject for Rieul, so I am confused. Please clarify. How does more Rieuls make Rieul of Riems more the one Rieul? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support now there are several other topics; move the bishop to Rieul of Reims (with a redirect from Rieul of Rheims!) seems best. (And I've just wasted/spent far too long upgrading the article on Roland Rieul.) PamD 10:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but make the second target Rieul of Reims, in line with the disambig entry and with Rieul of Senlis, also it seems a bishop. : Noyster (talk), 10:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.