Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicode System of Units

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. Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode System of Units

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

This subset of Unicode is not notable, and article lacks any citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep: The only 2 comments on International_System_of_Units Sep 2011 include "separate article" "deserves its own article or ...". Unicode is a fact of life and separating Unicode details from the main International_System_of_Units page makes good sense. The Unicode stub page does need a intro, more citations, maybe a rename from Unicode System of Units to the non-capitalised "Unicode system of units" and Wikification. Some details about when/how these derived SI units were included into the CJK characters is recommended. NevilleDNZ (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renameto Unit symbols in Unicode, and expand to include units besides SI. This is certainly encyclopedic, and has (potentially) particular utility in correlating Unicode codepoints and glyphs to encyclopedia entries about the units. Robert Hiller (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent summary of the issues may be found in Characters in SI notations. Robert Hiller (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 24 March 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, B music ian 06:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. Tables with no explanation of what they are supposed to be about are not helpful to encyclopedia users. The "keep" and "rename" recommendations above suggest that this content is meaningful to some people, but a few sentences of text to make it meaningful to many more people would make a big difference. For example, why would Unicode have a ㎏ symbol to represent the letters "kg"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things going on at once; like most Unicode things, it's complicated. Most of the items in the current article are about unit symbols for CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) scripts. There are a set of Unicode code points which indicate glyphs that fit in the rectangular blocks of CJK scripts. This is probably worth an article by itself. The second thing is that there are a few unit symbols, for example angstrom unit which are not ordinary latin glyphs, so there are particular Unicode code points for them. This was the thinking behind the suggestion to rename to Unit symbols in Unicode. And then my (poorly expressed) idea is that because SI units are meant to be cross-lingual, there should be a common set of Unicode codepoints that express standard units unambiguously. The concept is that an article linking SI units with the corresponding Unicode values would have encylopedic value. Robert Hiller (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment indicates that the article may constitute original research. Sandstein 07:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incomprehensible. Articles are supposed to make minimal sense. Without any context or explanation this is just a bunch of random symbols in a table to me, not an encyclopedia article. Sandstein 07:37, 8 April 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, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some interest shown here for including this information on Wikipedia, though as the information currently stands it doesn't make sense, and is likely in violation of various parts of WP:Not. The aim of Wikipedia is to summarise human knowledge, not to duplicate everything. I question the value of including these tables, and as the information is already contained in a table in the source used, then what is required is an overview of the Unicode System of Units, and simply a link - either as a cite or as an external link, to the tables. If these tables are public domain, then perhaps Wikisource might be the best place for them. I'm inclined to delete as I think that our guidelines and policies do not allow this material. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm changing my recommendation to move this along. As noted above, the current page is a mess, and has limited utility as it is. The article name makes no sense, as there is no system of units unique to Unicode. I still maintain that there is an encyclopedic value to two new articles, one on CJK-compatible unit symbols in Unicode, and another on various SI and non-SI symbols in Unicode, analogous to Phonetic symbols in Unicode or Cultural, political, and religious symbols in Unicode. An article on Unit symbols in Unicode would have particular importance for non-English speakers who may need help understanding Latin-based unit symbols in a different language document. Robert Hiller (talk) 17:07, 13 April 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.