Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CPC character set

CPC character set

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

This article is about a non-notable character set. It was prodded for this reason but it was restored and that still applies. This is because there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article, failing WP:GNG -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is trivial. A merge to Amstrad CPC is problematic because adding this table would make that article worse; no objection to a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may exist/have existed, but for all the encyclopedic value it has in its current context it could just as easily have been made up by the author. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references or any accompanying information to establish authority. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard to do anything without sources; would reconsider if reliable sources were found. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically the above reasonings. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not just parroting the comments by other editors? Something you've just been at ANI and various admin talk pages at, accusing other editors of doing it? Why is it OK for you to literally say "Basically the above reasonings" and that's alright, but if anyone else disagrees with you and agrees with another editor, then it's "parroting" and should be discarded (with an itemised point-by-point list of reasons). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amstrad CPC, as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEC APC character set (and the same nominator). These were both machines that might represent dead-ends, with hindsight, but they had a significant multi-million unit slice of the market in their heyday. Notability is not transient. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]