Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBCDIC 389


 * 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. While I see a weak consensus to delete, I wouldn't assume that a mass nomination would automatically succeed. Per WP:SSEFAR, there is no apparent difference in notability between this and any of the other codes, so I recommend a mass nomination to achieve a consistent result for everything. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

EBCDIC 389

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are many pages of this type, this nomination is only for this one. If succesful, a mass nomination of similar ones may be necessary.

This seems something that is well suited for Wikisource or something similar, but not for Wikipedia, as it just reproduces a code page, but doesn't provide commentary on it from secondary sources. Which is logical, as such a codepage is not the kind of thing many books, articles, ... are written about. Basically, this topic lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge Into a new list "List of EBCDIC code". The subject language is notable so a list is best place.User:Davidstewartharvey
 * I can imagine a list which states that 389 is Italy or some such, but I hope you aren't suggesting merging the actual code tables? Fram (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Turns out that such a list already exists at Code page, so no need to merge even this tiny it of information. Fram (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There are many code page and character encoding articles; see for instance the navbox at the bottom of the page and the code page article. If this AfD is meant to be some kind of referendum on this class of articles, it would be better to have a discussion or RFC about what to do with these, perhaps in WP:COMPUTING, than an AfD on an new article few have watchlisted. Better to try to gain consensus first before a mass transwiki or a mass deletion. -- 12:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Each article must be able to stand on its own. If this one turns out to be lacking notability, then it may be time to look at the many other similar ones and see if they have the same problems. If this one turns out to be notable, then the sourcing provided to establish this may perhaps be useful for the other ones as well (assuming this one isn't an exception). We don't really need an RfC to deal with articles which don't meet the most basic standards (significant coverage in independent sources), RfCs are more useful for things where separate standards may be needed or a dispute about which sources are acceptable exists (e.g. WP:PORNBIO). This doesn't seem to be the case here, yet. In any case, my intention wouldn't be to get the other similar articles speedy deleted based on this precedent, but to bring the ones that seem to be similar to AfD as well, but then as a goup nomination. Fram (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are my thoughts on deleting code page articles...
 * I'd like to raise the visibility of this item, at least to a few users that regularly work on code page articles . Ideally I think it should be raised higher, maybe to the editors that watch the Code page list article.
 * I think EBCDIC 389 should be marked a stub rather than deleted. That would provide time for others with more expertise to "provide commentary on it from secondary sources" if that's a requirement.  (That could apply to other articles with only the code page number and name in the lede.)
 * Another option might be to group detailed info (like the chset chart) of related code pages together. For example, code pages 382-395 (and a few others) are described as "EBCDIC Publishing" code pages.  If someone can come up with commentary on what defines a "publishing" code page, they can become one, presumably notable article.
 * I think even the slightest of these articles don't just "reproduce the code page" but also provides information on the relationship between this code page and Unicode. Information that isn't always available elsewhere.  I know it's a niche topic but it's well sourced and is notable at least to an old computer software engineer like me.  As my generation retires, and as all the old technical manuals and books get thrown away, this information will just vanish.  I think it's useful to have the code page article available.
 * Lastly, I have information/sources on around forty of the red linked code pages in the Code page list article. I think they should at least be stubs with code page number, name, and chset chart.  I have no way of knowing which will be deemed notable.  I guess I'll hold off until this discussion comes to some conclusion.
 * DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per DRMcCreedy. If not notable enough to stand on its own, redirect to EBCDIC 361, a similar code page. There are enough sources I call this notable. I will make this item visible to other users who work on code page articles: . Alexlatham96 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the sourcing concerns; now I'm unsure if this is notable or not. If articles like this one are deleted, then pages like this one should transwiki to Wikisource or Wikibooks. I would prefer to see a redirect to Code page over a deletion. Also, I added another source showing more information. Alexlatham96 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * CommentI am still confused where does this show notability against wikipedia rules? WP:Nsoft It is long established that Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a free wiki host. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be locations where primary source documentation for software packages is hosted, WP:Product - When discussion of its products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. However I agree with DMCready, as the code needs to be retained, and without the code the EBDIC page is lacking the detail. However at the moment The code page is not exactly great. The code page covers more that just EBDIC, so making it way to long.User:Davidstewartharvey


 * Note to closing admin: please check the WP:CANVASSing of keep votes in this AfD. Fram (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Breakdown of the actual sources used in the article now. The first one is from IBM, so not helpful to establish notability here.
 * This is just a line in a table, nothing more, no additional information or commentary
 * This again is from IBM, so not helpful for notability
 * This is a gif reproducing the codepage. How this is supposed to show notability is not clear at all. Certainly not when you realise that this is the main page behind that. Not a reliable site, just a personal website.
 * So what we have here that are supposedly "enough sources I call this notable" is one line in a table in a reliable, independent site, and that's it? Whch is not a surprise, given the total lack of sources for this otherwise. Fram (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I generally avoid creating new character encoding articles, on the basis that they often aren't strong enough to stand on their own, and on the basis that the first article I ever created, many years ago (3D Starfield) finished up being deleted, which put me off from creating new articles ever. Mostly, I've been working on the coverage of encodings with existing articles, and maybe covering variants of other encodings in the same article as the more widespread or standardised variant (vide, Code page 866, ISO/IEC 8859-5, JIS X 0201), creating appropriate redirects. Where possible, I'd much prefer to see articles merged and redirected, rather than deleted.

The sole exception to this is Code page 1057, which was previously a mistaken redirect to Symbol (typeface) (i.e. Code page 1038), and I figured that even if it did get deleted, that would still be better than a factually misleading redirect.

Regarding transwiki: the suggestion of Wikisource isn't really appropriate (the articles / tables are not reproducing a public domain text). Wikibooks or Wikiversity might be more sensible transwikis (since a lab handbook style textbook of character encoding mappings is a valuable resource, even if it does not constitute an encyclopedia). Although there is a Charset Wikia wiki, it is only in Korean, and not really in Wikia's rebranded "Fandom" scope anymore. Archive Team's File Format Wiki might also be an interested party worth contacting, since it has some rudimentary coverage of several character encodings, mostly just linking to the Wikipedia articles for the time being, although I daresay Archive Team of all groups would want the information to remain available even if it proves out of scope for Wikipedia. --HarJIT (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies: "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of (...) public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material". This is further explained in the guideline WP:NPS: "Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other primary source material."  Sandstein   13:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this and the many other similar codepage reproductions, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: this is not an encyclopedia article and so it does not belong in the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2020 (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.