Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HTML decimal character references (2nd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

List of HTML decimal character references (2nd VFD)
A list of every HTML character entity and the corresponding Unicode character from 32 to 10999. Great source material, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. It's been transwikied to Wikisource, so delete. --Carnildo 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The result of the previous VFD, which only ended a week ago, was to keep. If List of XML and HTML character entity references should be kept, so should this. Also, it wasn't transwiki'd to Wikisource, but simply duplicated there. This doesn't imply that the list belongs there, anymore than it implies that the list doesn't belong here. &mdash; BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2005-08-12 19:52
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Themindset 20:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's borderline so I'm not surprised that someone has transwikied it to WikiSource where it would also be appropriate, but I can conceive of encyclopedic uses for this list.  For instance one could link the more significant characters or blocks of characters to relevant articles.  As an example, say I don't recognise the symbol "σ" and I'd like to know what uses it has, it could be linked to Sigma.  Enties like that would in time produce a very valuable encyclopedic resource, and not something one would necessarily want to do on WikiSource where the relevant articles can only be reached via transwiki link to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway Talk  20:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and put to Wikisource. In the form it is here it has no use - a tool which allows to search for character or convert text back and forth would be useful but Wikipedia doesn't have such capabilities.
 * See Tony Sidaway's comments. It clearly has a use. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-13 00:45
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikisource RustyCale 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-13 00:45
 * (from Wikisource:What is Wikisource?) "While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikisource is a library. Wikipedia contains articles about books, while Wikisource includes the book itself. To some extent both may include bibliographical material about the author." RustyCale 12:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a book, it is a list of useful symbols, if there was also a copied book on the history of HTML it would be different, but there isn't.  &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 15:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the statement applies to not only books but movies, OS kernels and other source material. This page is source material, not an article about HTML characters. RustyCale 12:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT a directory &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How is this even close to a directory??? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-13 00:45
 * It's a directory of HTML codes, hello? &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just like every other list on Wikipedia is a directory of people or objects. It is a list of useful symbols with links to the articles of some.  What separates this list from any other list?  &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 15:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is useful. An encyclopedia contains useful infromation.  What am I missing?  (don't answer that)  &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 00:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: a demo of something wikisource couldn't do (and which is encyclopedic). Go to the article now and click on one of the blue-linked characters in the first couple of rows.  Now imagine what will happen when *all* characters are linked like that.  If you see a character you don't understand, just go to this article and click on the character, and you'll see what Wikipedia has to say about that character.  This is precisely why Wikipedia exists on computers and not in a looseleaf binder. --Tony Sidaway Talk  01:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, I had a hankering to learn about question marks. So I went to Wikipedia, typed in "List of HTML decimal character references" into the search field, and voila! I found a page where I could click on a question mark to find out about them. Or maybe I wanted to learn about Minuscule, so I typed in "List of HTML decimal character references" so I could click on the letter "b" to get there. Totally logical. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Captain False Analogy. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-13 16:00
 * Sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet. Your examples are trivial; the principle works best when you see a character whose name you don't know. For example, this list would make the article for gimel accessible to people who only know the character as a funny-looking, nameless squiggle. --Tony Sidaway Talk
 * I've added a few sections with more content. I'm confident this has turned the article into something everyone will now consider is encyclopedic. I also think Tony's idea would be great and prove very useful for readers. It would also allow readers to know what the actual characters are that their browsers aren't displaying. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-13 01:32
 * Delete. When you look up "unencyclopedic" in Wiktionary, it should include this page as an example. Nandesuka 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? (see Deletion policy) I'm wondering if you've even looked at the article or read anyone else's comments here. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-13 05:39
 * Marginal Keep. I think it can be useful to see all of these in a list.  And I don't know of any positive reason for it to be deleted.  If it's kept, it ought to be moved to List of Unicode characters, since the list doesn't really have much to do with HTML.  dbenbenn | talk 18:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't Unicode different? I'm just going by this site: "If you need to display characters which are not shown here then have a look at Unicode, a sixteen bit system for displaying almost any character; http://www.unicode.org." &mdash; BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-08-13 18:47
 * Ahh nevermind, you're right. It probably should be at List of Unicode characters. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-08-13 18:52
 * Speedy delete, recreation of deleted article Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't speedy delete an article just because you fancy it bears a passing resemblance to another article that has been transwikied. Let's discuss *this* article --Tony Sidaway Talk  01:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think tacking another thousand characters at the end prevents it from being a "substantially identical copy". &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you in fact looked at the deleted article Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999? If so, why are you making transparently false claims? If not, why are you wasting time? --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. Anyone else may also do so at wikisource:Transwiki:Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999 (until it's moved), and compare it to the article under discussion for themselves. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sigh... Anything that isn't an outright lie is technically useful, which is in itself a useless argument. / Peter Isotalo 02:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If the argument mentioned isn't an otright lie, than how could it be technically useful, and a useless argument at the same time. I think you need to show what separates technically useful from just plain useful.   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 02:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. It did get a bit confusing there. Claiming that something is "useful" is a useless argument in this context. This is true even if the perfectly correct information (the non-lie) is just plain ol' "useful" rather than the more specific "technically useful". / Peter Isotalo 03:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is one of the most useful things I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've missed something, but aren't encyclopaedias supposed to have useful information in them? - ulayiti (talk)  15:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Should be Speedy Keep due to having survived a VfD only a week ago. People are way too hung up on the idea that every wikip page has to be of the discursive kind that get featured and shown on the main page. --zippedmartin 20:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has some value, has been kept in the past.  NoSeptember  14:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Split, by which I also mean keep. This article is huge-o massive-o which detracts from it being awesome-o. SchmuckyTheCat 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - could be useful. Trollderella 01:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Derktar 05:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC).
 * Keep as per Tony Sideway. arj 13:24, 19 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.