Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human-readable


 * 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Human-readable

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article title is about a type of 'readable' which is an adjective. In accordance with both WP:MOS and particularly the WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy the wikipedia doesn't have adjectives. The article has never had any references, and it does not seem that after 5 years it will ever do so. The article meaning is obvious from its title and the wikipedia does not seem to gain from having it, it is simply a dictionary definition. If it was to be kept it would need to be moving to human readability, but given the policy violations, clumsiness of the appropriate title, and the apparent pointlessness of the article, I'm requesting deletion. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - article fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If suitable sources can be found, the article would be notable and should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has been improved. It is now both notable and encylopedic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the last bit; just because it's notable doesn't make it encyclopedic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I suppose it could be merged, along with machine readable to readability- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and that points the way. There are sources that discuss human and machine readability.  This one does, for example.  It even has that very name as part of its title.  &#9786;  (Albeit that it isn't a source for the entirety of the subject.) This is pretty much the same situation as we had with  and  at AFD some years ago.  A merger, of two sides of the same coin into one article for both, seems indicated here as it was there. Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with machine-readable. Ridiculous to delete an article because of word form. Yes, nouns are the best title, but if it should be the case for some particular concept that the best title is an adjective, so what? that;'s the sort of problem we have IAR for.  it is in any case easy enough to adjust the title to human-readable formatting, or something of the sort.  Readability is a much more general multi-meaning term, and not a good choice for merging.    As for sources, it's just a matter of looking.--looking at leaser as far as the gBooks and Gscholar results right up there in the top line below the title and above the nomination. Human-readable, in every sense.     DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the policy is telling us something here; adjectives like longer, higher, faster don't make very good articles; and adjectives are proscribed by policy; it cannot be kept where it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed they usually do not. I agree with the policy on this. But IAR supersedes all other policies--it's very purpose is to deal with exceptional cases, so it could be kept at the title if there is consensus to do so.   DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It appears to me that the article conveys more than just a dictionary definition, albeit it's admittedly not the greatest prose, nor a complete discussion of the subject matter. We have many articles that are entitled by adjectives. If it's really awkward to use a title like that, it's easy to formulate a representative 'human-readable' phrase. The article can certainly be improved. Poor language and lack of effort over time is no reason to delete it either. I would not even merge it, but it would be good to contrast each article briefly against the counterpart. The article is referenced by many others and deletion seems rather absurd. Kbrose (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of an article title that is an adjective?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Lame


 * Keep The topic is obviously notable and the fussing over grammar is no reason to bring the article to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 04:58, 5 October 2009 (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.