Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CPC character set

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. With all respect to Andy Dingley, the deletes have it. As for merging, without any sourcing at all it's difficult to ponder merging content, but that's my opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPC character set[edit]

CPC character set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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]
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]
  • "Would decrease the quality of [the target article]" is no reason for deletion. A link ⊕ is firstly correct, secondly a far broader WP problem – some disambig pages overlap into short definitions. It is not the task of AfD to address those. Thirdly, if the article needs work, then work on it to fix it – deletion is not a substitute.
What these articles do have in common though is rather more concerning: they're the creation of one editor, Rowan03 (talk · contribs) and their nomiinations for deletion are the strenuous efforts of another editor - yourself. Is there some reason for this? I'd ask those interested to check the user talk page to see just how many of these these are, but I note that you haven't even bothered to notify the editor for some of them (or even troubled with AfD, when you've preferred to simply blank them). This is much too close to HOUNDING for comfort. Is there any particular reason for this thorough campaign against one editor's efforts here? I note that your own talk page already contains warnings to not edit others comments on talk pages, and to avoid New Page Patrol. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CPC_character_set&oldid=1068887723"