Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideographic repertoire

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideographic repertoire

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

Incomprehensible gibberish. It looks like it might be describing a character set, or the class of all such sets, but it‘s unclear what it is referring to. Also exists on the Chinese WP, but both that and the article here are orphans which suggests the term is unknown and unused by anyone else. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an experiment I tried running the Chinese version of the article through Google translate. The result was pretty much the article here, which explains the gibberish.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment GScholar gets hits on this but not one that obviously explains it. I'm gathering that it may be a bit of Unicode jargon. Mangoe (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I had a look at those, and there were only a handful of results to do with Unicode, CJK in particular. Searching I found another a couple more of our articles Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block) and Chinese character description language#Ideographic Description Sequences which might be more closely related than character set. It may be the Chinese article was an attempt to write something on e.g. Ideographic Description Characters, which then ended up back here very badly translated.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also some some of the scholar results reference ISO 10646, which is Universal Coded Character Set – Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block) also refers to this standard. Seems we have multiple in depth articles on this already.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - No incoming links here so impact of removing something that we can't make sense of is not significant. ~Kvng (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2018 (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.