Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters (2nd 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 was  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Unicode characters
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A data dump with no context, that serves no purpose not better served by actually going to look at the unicode standard, is not useful. —Random832 21:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete, per what I just said above. —Random832 21:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree that it's presented in a better format elsewhere, and with a higher degree of reliability (who would possibly check these are accurate?). Since raw data like this is not encyclopedic, and not as useful as the official sources, it belongs here to the same extent a phone directory would. Thomjakobsen 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Unicode characters make me horny Xizer 22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  Comment, Keep Encyclopedia's exist to find knowledge right? So what if someone who did not know what this was, copy and pasted one of the symbols like "§" into the search, they would then learn all about unicode characters and how to write them. Or if someone wanted to edit wiki and needed to know how to write a "|" then this is where they would go. I don't know if this article belongs or not, but it seems like useful knowledge that would be a shame to delete. Viperix 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If they copy-pasted § into the search, they would arrive at section sign, which is far more useful than this one in finding out what “§” is. And, this article says nothing about how to write a “|”, nor is it in a form that would make it reasonable to add that information. —Random832 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point, if they type any of these characters in it should bring them to this list. Because it helps them to learn "hey I can type all this stuff by typing in this combination of numbers" and the learning process continues from there. Also it does teach how to write the "|" "U+007C | Vertical Line" under Basic Latin. Viperix 06:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * if they type any of these characters in it should bring them to this list would be a BAD idea. We have actual articles about many characters. And, this list does not give any way of typing in the characters, it doesn't discuss HTML entities, alt codes, gnome "ctrl-shift" entry, etc, and none of that would be useful at all anyway for | because, well, it's _on the keyboard_.
 * Its on the keyboard? I don't think its on mine..... If it is let me know where, should save me time lol. Anyway I still think you miss my point, if it teaches how to use it or not is irrelevant really. This list passes WP:SAL, is useful for identifying these charictars, and to answer a question below, while researching things on WP, people don't necessarily want to go to a bunch of other cites, thats why they come here. And I don't think it exists elsewhere on the internet is a valid reason for deletion, If it was, WP would be nothing but links with no information at all. Viperix 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I am against list-cruft, but this is not cruft. Wikipedia is not paper, and this information is extremely useful and cannot be stored as a category. This is an internationally accepted standard(ISO) the has gained enormous acceptance, none of Wikipedia's sister projects are better suited for it. This is a classic case of when a list is a good idea. The article can be made more encyclopedic by adding short one or two sentence explanations next to notable characters, and links to articles if they exist. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If none of Wikipedia's sister projects are better suited for it, Why does one of them have it? and mostly in a more useful form, too. (no, it doesn't have the list of character names, but it could reasonably be added.) —Random832 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is good reference information and while one might be able to find the same information in different places on the web, if one is looking for the info in wikipedia, it's nice to have it in a familiar format. Capmango 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's unencyclopedic. Why would someone be looking for this info in wikipedia and not be happy with an external link at the bottom of Unicode? —Random832 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a data dump of information already provided on other websites.-Wafulz 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep whether information is on other websites or not is irrelevant to whether it should be on wikipedia. We're a encyclopedia, not a mere guide to the web or a supplement to the web. And what makes something encyclopedic? that's just saying it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. But why? All encyclopedias have always had tables of information of this sort. DGG (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list cannot be said to have no context or to be indiscriminate.  I find it useful and informative, and I'm sure others do as well.  —Nricardo 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It provides no context. It's a list of characters and names. It does not explain the history of the characters, etc, and it is not in a form in which it would be reasonable to add that information. —Random832 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article lists the characters of mankind's most widely used character encoding system. This is just as important as English alphabet, in my opinion. Try to remember that Wikipedia is more than just a traditional encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 07:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Serves a useful purpose; no real need to delete. -Elmer Clark 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL. Except, it's NOT. It's, in fact, _less_ useful than a single external link to unicode.org. —Random832 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's just as important as the ASCII set. --Ancheta Wis 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but split into separate articles - it's too big and will cause problems for many people that look at it. violet/riga (t) 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree a split makes sense. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; This is exactly the type of notable information that I'd use as a reference. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for raw information for use as a reference. Wikisource is over there —Random832 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Deleting it would only make Wikipedia less useful as an encyclopedia. Tim Q. Wells 18:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete- This is not the right forum for this, love page of some sort methinks.JJJ999 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's actually quite useful and is (mildly) encyclopedic. I've referred to it myself here in the past - A l is o n  ❤ 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep somewhere. I'm not completely sure that Wikipedia is the best permanent place for this reference but I'm not sure that any of our sister projects are any better. I just found the page while attempting to research a question about domain-name spoofing (exploiting the similarity between the Cyrillic "Ye" and the Roman "E").  This page quickly answered my question when none of the other pages I'd found could. Note:  If it is removed in favor of one of our sister projects, the page should be overwritten with a soft-redirect to that sister project-page.  Deleting all traces of this page would be very unhelpful to our readers. Note 2: Splitting the page would, in my opinion, make the page much less helpful.  Perhaps the goal could be met through reformatting on the same page?  Rossami (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a reference content..wp->reference. fixed :).--Alnokta 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This reference material fulfills the criteria suggested by Lists in Wikipedia (note: this is an essay).   Bur nt sau ce  22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this looks like a nomination for the sake of nominating something. You do realise an encyclopedia is supposed to be a comprehensive reference work, right? - David Gerard 11:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or soft redirect to Wikibooks which has a much more efficient reference. Cary Bass demandez 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and perhaps fix up the formatting, but keep it because it is useful knowledge. We're not limited by shelf space here.  The more info, the better. -Slipgrid 13:38, 27 September 2007 (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.