Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters (3rd nomination)

:{{la|List of Unicode characters}} – (View AfD)(View log)

I know it have been nominated twice in few months but i believe the users who previously voted don't know the full reasons why it should be deleted. I will list here:

• It is a reference article, and not a encyclopedian article. It give nothing about meanings, it is just a reference.
• It break wikipedia format
• The full table is too big to be maintained here (The previous deleted Unicode reference was the biggest wikipedia article ever made, as far as I know)
• It was already deleted from wikipedia before, mainly for the above reasons (it was also deleted from wikisource, which is why I salvaged it on wikibooks)
• There is already a wikibook set of articles about Unicode reference (you can see it [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Unicode here], it is also linked from the article), and this article can divide the work to maintain it.

SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.

• Delete, for the reasons I posted above. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.
• Speedy Keep. It is less than a month since the last attempt to delete this article. The nomination indicates that other Wikimedia don't want it. Since the information is so important and useful, this list should be retained to ensure availability while its technical issues are hashed out. Colonel Warden 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Agree with CW. - jc37 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: we have many lists ("reference article"s as the nominator puts it), many of which are excellent and useful; "it breaks wikipedia format", what does that even mean?; if its too big, split it up; I dunno if it was deleted before, but the last two times the AfDs ended a keep; a subject being present on Wikibooks doesn't mean it can also be here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• You guys seen to be forgetting that unicode have about 100,000 characters. If it passes out it can spread into 32 huge pages like this one (number of unicode character reference pages in wikibooks) or stay as it is: a mix between wikipedia and wikibooks articles. Note the article is already asking to be expanded ("This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it", and the current merge problem, asking to merge all specialized Unicode tables in this one). Please note I am not complaining, just argumenting. But remember this warning: It is still a mere fraction of the full extension it can grow (100.000 chars) and it is already the biggest article in wikipedia (If not it is one of the biggest for sure) with a lot people complaining it (in discussion at least, not here for sure :P)SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.
• Speedy keep. Most print encyclopedias of my knowledge include tables of alphabets for various languages. Not at all surprising that we should have one for electronic alphabets. Repetitive nomination with no really new claims made in this one. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Please, read my argument above SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.
• Speedy Keep per reasons above Bjewiki (Talk) 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Smerdis of Tlön's arguments about tables of alphabets. Not to mention, *I* find it useful to have here, so I assume others do too. —Quasirandom 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I too find it useful. But I also think it will become a nightmare to maintain the mix wikipedia + wikibooks or import all the articles of Unicode in wikibooks. Why not just leave it in wikibooks and link to there? SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.
• Keep Useful article. Mindraker 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Does anyone else think it's WP:SNOWing? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• tw to Wikibooks Will ^(talk) 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per snow, and that it has only been a month since last AFD. Finally, if it is so big, the editors could find a way to split it up. Viperix 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this sort of nomination is abusive. The matter has been thoroughly discussed, and I think we need some sort of a rule that after three keep afds, it can not be brought up again for 6 or 12 months or so. Personally. I would tend to support regarding any attempt at doing this without deletion review as interfering with the operation of wikipedia. DGG (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Splitting it up might be a good idea. Transwiki to wikisource would be a better idea. jonathon 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep article and subject are notable. Suggestions for possible reorganization should be made on the article's talk page, not via AfD. Alansohn 05:43, 28 October 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.