Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summary of Unicode character assignments

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 delete. henrik•talk 07:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Unicode character assignments

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is way too detailed and complicated to be helpful for the general reader (or even Unicode experts), and this makes it extremely hard to maintain. I and other editors have just finished updating Unicode-related pages for Unicode version 6.1 that was released this week, but no-one has updated the Unicode content of this page since Unicode version 5.0 (released July 2006, and now three versions out of date) as it is so much trouble to recalculate all the figures and character ranges. Furthermore, the organization of Unicode blocks into different tables is idiosyncratic and seems to reflect a single editor's idea of how best to categorise Unicode blocks rather than reflect any categorization of blocks in the Unicode Standard. The breakdown of table rows into "Unalloc'd", "Alloc'd", "Excl", "Incl", "Reservd", "Provd", "Compat", "Core" is again idiosyncratic and borders on original research. A far clearer and readable overview of Unicode character allocation is already provided in the Unicode block article, and so there is no need for Summary of Unicode character assignments. BabelStone (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article looks informative to me. The fact that it is imperfect is no reason to delete it. Improvements are needed, but that is the case with 99% (or actually 100%) of all articles on Wikipedia.--Mlewan (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My improvement to it would be to delete the unnecessary columns, and rearrange in the order given in the Unicode Standard, the end result of which would be rather similar to the Unicode block article. If there did not already exist a better replacement for this article I would agree that it is better to improve than delete, but there is already a better, more informative article which is based on reliable sources (did I forget to mention that Summary of Unicode character assignments is unsourced?). BabelStone (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced" is no reason for deletion. If something is wrong and unsourced it should obviously be deleted, but if we were to remove every fact in Wikipedia that did not have a carefully verified reliable source, then the whole project would shrink to absolute uselessness.

The article Unicode block is something I had to look at twice, before I even realised that one can expand the section to get any useful info at all, so there is a usability problem there. Nevertheless, it is true that the two articles heavily overlap, so I change my "vote" to Merge and improve Unicode block. --Mlewan (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-direct page title to the section on allocation in the Unicode block article, per BabelStone. -- Evertype·✆ 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep- Needs to be sourced out, but that's an editing issue. Useful albeit esoteric piece, in my opinion.~~ Carrite (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will stand down since others more familiar with this content indicate this is a fork. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the last thing we need is an out-of-date WP:CFORK of something that already exists (Unicode block). -- 202.124.73.139 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unicode block Per nom. —Ruud 10:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current version (Unicode 5.0) was also the first version in the article, so it has never been updated. The tables can only be maintained automated (but there is no bot for this), which cuts me out of improvements. This situation is making the "to be edited for improvements is no deletion argument" unconvincing: here it is. Some column definitions are OR (e.g. Excl/Incl). And: what does the information really add to the encyclopedia? Apart from some legend entries, the page does not give much or easy insight nor oversight of the allocation issues. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator [1]. -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I defer to the experienced editors' assessment that this is redundant and outdated. Do not redirect; not a likely search term. Sandstein 08:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The arguments of the experienced Delete proponents is persuasive. There are in fact no remaining Keep proponents, and I wonder why this was ever relisted. Ravenswing 09:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: When it was relisted, Carrite had not struck their Keep yet. Also, the creator was notified a bit late. For me, another week is no problem, though I recall that a earlier closing is possible. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no case being made here that there is something offensive in the work in this edit history such that these edits need to be hidden from everyone but the admins, I suggest finding a solution that does not use admin tools. Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move without keeping a redirect to Summary of Unicode 5.0 character assignments. Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just contradicted myself, because that solution deletes the existing title. Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.