Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic numeral variations


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Arabic numeral variations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: poorly sourced random collections of trivia about Arabic numerals. Duplicates information on other pages.

Previously survived a PROD and a PROD2, hence AfD. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree about sourcing, but the information is basically correct and the article is improvable in this respect. However I disagree about INDISCRIMINATE: The collection is not random: the topic is well-defined and quite narrow. Duplication can be handled by normal editing. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Poorly referenced, and all the topics discussed are already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. A better article on this topic would lean me towards "weak keep." -- 101.117.2.217 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - currently this is very weak. A decent article might be written.  Rick Steves mentioned this concept in an episode of his PBS documentary, Travel Skills.  But a lot of work has to be done, so userfication may be the best option. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Arabic Numerals section of Regional handwriting variation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. There is possibly scope for a separate article, but at present it would largely duplicate content from text figures and Regional handwriting variation.  I don't see the need for such a fork at the moment.  (My overall impression is already summarized nicely by 101.117.2.217.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Hisashiyarouin's point that anything useful and anything useful at [[Regional handwriting variation, could be consolidated into one whole, either there or here, to beneficial effect.  In either case we might see the notability here as being less a question of whether a split was appropriate there. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Regional_handwriting_variation. It's an interesting topic, and one worth covering, but it's not so wide an area that we need two separate articles.  I do prefer the format of the prose here to the prose in the target article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 08:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Calls to merge to Regional handwriting variation do not cut it, because it is not only handwriting but also printed or computer typefaces variation (e.g. see books that discuss it in such context). More sourcing is perhaps not easy to come across if you are not a typography expert, but it is most probably present. -- cyclopia speak! 14:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A useful page which does the job of summarising information present in other articles.--ЗAНИA talk talk] 20:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is more about printed fonts than handwriting so the proposed redirect target makes no sense. And per Summary style, it should be completely acceptable to have an article such as this one that summarizes briefly material that is detailed in several other articles such as text figures. The referencing could be improved but the linked articles have more and AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2014 (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.