Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBCDIC 252


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

EBCDIC 252

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since my notability tag was removed, I expect the proposed deletion would be, too, so - here we go. Why is this unreferenced table notable? Doesn't exactly fall under WP:NOSTATS, but Wikipedia is also NOT a technical manual, either (WP:NOTMANUAL). Why should we have pages on individual 'EBCDIC code pages'? They seem like minute, niche technical topics that don't belong in encyclopedia due to failing WP:N. Note I am not saying EBCDIC concept itself fails, but I am saying that having such tables is going too far - it's along having pages on individual Pokemons - and frankly, those Pokemons had more household recognition that this ever will... PS. Maybe we could merge those code pages into some kind of list, just like those Pokemons were eventually merged into the list of Pokemons? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep While the audience might be smaller than that for an entertainer, or a Pokemon, the value to each member of that more limited audience is far greater than the value for that wide audience. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no reason to delete articles for which the audience is smaller. If the argument is that the individual table articles are too niche, it would be better to address the question en masse, rather than one article at a time.  They could be merged info the EBCDIC code pages article, but frankly, that would be a big step backwards in organization.  These articles are very useful, there are many of them, and they have been around for quite some time. Just for starters, there are 22 similar pages in the category EBCDIC code pages, and 52 in the category for DOS code pages. Many of them have been around for quite a while.Jacona (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article isn't unreferenced any more. Code pages and character set used in mass-produced computers and devices as well as those used in significant solitaire computers (like those of the main-frame era) are encyclopedic information. They are sought after by people carrying out data or program conversions or doing computer forensics. They are also needed by implementors involved f.e. in the internationalization of (system) software. They are interesting for computer historians. Character sets like this one are part of the "essence" of what is left of old systems, this info is needed to enable people to access information stored in formats using this character set. Since people are expecting this information to be found documented in an electronic encyclopedia, we have a long-time project going to document them here in order to preserve this vital information for generations to come. In some cases, character sets have uses and histories beyond their original platforms, which would be difficult to describe in the context of more generic articles, also the character tables would sometimes disturb the formating/flow in other articles, so they are typically kept separate. In some cases, a group of character sets is described in combined articles, but the group of EBCDIC character sets is too large for this. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2017 (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.