Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HTML decimal character references (3rd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Hedley 18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

List of HTML decimal character references

 * A huge article, with lots of ghost links that I see no way they can ever be created. How is this a useful article?? Georgia guy 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's already survived two AfDs. Why do you expect to fail a third time? howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Howcheng. It is Wikipedia's largest article, and it has lots of ghost links and it will probably always be this way if it gets no edits. I see no way this huge article with lots of ghost links is useful. Georgia guy 22:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Other options have been discussed on Talk:List of HTML decimal character references. I think that some of those options should be pursued before trying to raise the specter of deletion again. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 23:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is an indiscriminate data dump. No way are we ever going to have articles about any significant fraction of these codes. Even if we determined that Unicode charts were appropriate article subjects, we would not need a comprehensive list of Unicode code points that confusingly calls them "HTML decimal character references." Gazpacho 00:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons I gave in previous VfD: Articles for deletion/List of HTML decimal character references (I made the initial nomination for deletion). Also note the transwiki attempt failed; it was at List of HTML decimal character references for a while, but was deleted. And FWIW, this list was User:Brian0918's pet project. He's an administrator (which IMHO means he should know better). &mdash; mjb 04:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I write HTML. Just delete the links that'll never be written and you'll be just fine... orngjce223Orngjce223 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reduce or Divide, This article is very important, but some parts of the article is pointless, so i suggest that we reduce this article and only keep the important stuff. Or, because this is the longest article on wikipedia, maybe we could divide it into smaller articles and have different parts.--Jakewater 00:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What's to reduce? There's really not much to the article other than the list of references and a some prose (some of whch got moved to a separate article) that came about because people didn't understand what a character reference was or the fact that not all references are allowed in HTML. Oh good grief. I just noticed that even that was made into a separate article: List of unused HTML decimal character references. People just don't get it. &mdash; mjb 03:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding divide, Articles for deletion/Various Unicode-related pages shows that a similar set of pages (Table of Unicode Characters) existed previously and were voted out of existence, FWIW. &mdash; mjb 04:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's useful to see what some of these link to. --SarekOfVulcan 08:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep - keep if all the redlinks are removed (they can be re-added if/when artices are written on the characters). BD2412  T 15:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; one of the points of having a list (as opposed to a category) is that of having red links to mark articles on a given topic that can be written. I would not base deletion on the forecast that most links of this list will stay red forever. - Liberatore(T) 18:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I love arcane trivia as much as the next guy, I suspect that's why a lot of us are here. But this?! Useless. Ifnord 21:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic way of organizing articles about glyphs. Kappa 05:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I really want to vote delete, but this is the type of information that you are likely to only find in an electronic encylopedia.  Vegaswikian 06:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and divide into smaller pages. Plenty of precedent all over Wikipedia on doing this. Turnstep 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, being a webdeveloper, I really appeciate this kind of information. I agree with others saying, where else to find this except on wikipedia. The list is long, granted, but really complete, and that is what a lot of similar sites is missing. Cypres 15:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I need this article. I type ALT+NUM LOCK+CODE POINT to produce a unique character when typing in foreign languages in order to avoid having to switch keyboard layouts. I'm adding this article to my Favorites Folder right now so I can reference it whenever I need it. Also, please don't divide the list--that will make the characters harder for me to find. The 32 kb rule is a rule of thumb, not a one-size-fits-all rule. It is meant to be used only in cases where it would make the article easier to read (as in the case of all stylistic rules). Most online encyclopedia articles (i.e., on World Book Online or Encylcopaedia Britannica Online) are much longer than 32 kb. As for the dead links, I agree it has too many--that's why the links should be removed, but the entries kept. (See the |Manual of Style's "Links" sectionto see why.)  Primetime 03:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; confusing and unwieldy data dump. &mdash;Onlyemarie 09:20, 19 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.