Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AtErik1/List of Unicode Ligatures Homoglyphs, Part 1 of 2

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:AtErik1/List of Unicode Ligatures Homoglyphs, Part 1 of 2


WP:FAKEARTICLE recreation of content deleted at Articles for deletion/List of useful Unicode symbols. While it is actively updated, it has no mainspace possibility per the arguments in the deletion discussion. Namely, it is clearly WP:OR as to what Latin letter(s), if any, a particular character/CJK character contains. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a Part 2. I'm not including it in my nomination formally at this time, but if anyone feels it should be separately MFD'd, go ahead. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to add it to this nomination, you can simply place  at the top of User:AtErik1/List of Unicode Ligatures Homoglyphs, Part 2 of 2 and add   below the first pagelinks above. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know how to combine MfD's but I'm not going to as I'm not 100% sure that my rationale applies fully to it. Pinging as the nominator of the originator AfD. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite its title, List of Unicode Ligatures Homoglyphs, Part 2 of 2 is a valid list of Unicode symbol characters, and is very different in scope to List of Unicode Ligatures Homoglyphs, Part 1 of 2. I would not nominate for deletion an objective and sourced list of Unicode symbol characters (i.e. all characters defined in the Unicode Standard as having the Unicode general category property of Sm, Sc, Sk or So) such as this if it was moved into the main space. However, there is already an article on Unicode symbols, and as that article is very incomplete I suggest merging the content of List of Unicode Ligatures Homoglyphs, Part 2 of 2 with Unicode symbols. BabelStone (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Please read Discussion done on this in my Talk page, and also see Heterography and homography. It seems few users do not want to understand what "looks-like" means! Anyway i added more notes in the page. Its very clear & obvious even to a 10 year old kid what Latin/English-characters these CJK chars look-like: 叱=At, 䧕=Box, 阺=BEE, 卬=CP, 때=CCH, 대=CH, 乣=EL, 氏=EE, 印=EP, 后=Fo, 咸=Fox, 迆=ith, 卭=IP, 邛=IB, 灹=KE, 灴=KI, 니=LI, 내=LH, 爬=Me, 이=OI, 尻=Pr, 邬=SB, 也=th, 比=tt, 屸=WI, 岍=WA, 屹=WE, 乢=WL, 래=2H, 㐰=10, 旧=18. If someone shows such, its NOT Original Work or Research, as ANYONE can figure/interpret this out (does not need a higher degree for that), so it is not my own unique or subjective interpretation, again - anyone can interpret those CJK or other non-Latin/non-English characters as the Latin/English look-alike heterophonic-homograph character what i've shown after the "equal" sign, exactly/similar to that/those. The CJK-"旧" looks-like exactly Latin/English-number-"18", not something else like "28" (but if i were to show it that it looks like "28" then that would have been wrong & wrong heterophonic-homograph interpretation). Its not original-research. It needed common-sense interpretation. If a person/you see a picture/object, and if it looks like something that person/you already knows, then showing that/such/same picture again is not original-research/work. And also, please see my TALK page discussion. I created this/pages in mainspace, this/these should not have been deleted from mainspace, instead it/they needed more work from more wikipedia editors/users, instead of talking & deleting. -- AtErik1 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as essentially a recreation of a deleted article, as WP:LISTCRUFT and as WP:OR. This sort of list is inherently subjective, and it is impossible to find reliable supporting sources for the homoglyph identifications (any external source listing Unicode homoglyphs would itself be a subjective list). It is not encyclopedic, and should not be on Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.