Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITU T.61

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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITU T.61[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominating for transwikiing and deletion, following the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875. -- Beland (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Last year 120+ EBCDIC code page articles were also slated for "transwiki and delete" but to my knowledge they were never transwiki'd but simply deleted. I have little faith that ITU T.61 will actually be transwiki'd even if that's the decision. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like they didn't make it to Wikibooks, but they did make it to Everybodywiki, which is apparently the land of deleted articles. For example [1]. -- Beland (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the nominator or a volunteer cares to successfully transwiki the pages to WikiBooks and stand them up successfully and shown then this is done deletion may be raised. Otherwise the nominator appears to be simply promoting an alternative website. If seeking for help with transwiki ... note Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki is defunct. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't endorse Everybodywiki; it's just what came up on a web search. I have no intention of working on transwikiing; I just noticed that some but not all code page articles had been approved for deletion and wanted to see if that should be done consistently across the board. Saying we can't delete this until they are actually transwikied to Wikibooks is an argument for undeleting all the other code page articles, no? -- Beland (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: "Transwiki" is a term that is easily said but perhaps less well defined. A page can be relatively easily "transwiki'd" to WikiBooks (the EBCIDIC stuff was in my view done poorly and mostly have a copyvio attributable to an English wikipedia oversighter unless somethings changed), however to be of any use there it needs to be stood up and integrated into a WikiBook. To a degree is a bit like the kit of parts from Woolwich Arsenal bought by Morton at the Broadstone ... useless until built into a GSR Class 393, and which then has some long term issues because the design's been kludged from 4' 8½" to 5' 3". Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if we're not undeleting the EBCDIC code pages, and no one gets around to making Wikibooks out of any of these articles, then we're just doing a deletion and assuming that in the unlikely event anyone needs to translate a file in these character encodings, they will simply refer to the primary documents from the vendor that define the standard. Which is what we more or less assume for any real thing that isn't notable. I'm fine with that. -- Beland (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 10 August 2021 (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.