Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of precomposed Latin characters in Unicode

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 keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion; editors are reminded to pursue alternatives before nominating an article for deletion. Skomorokh 15:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of precomposed Latin characters in Unicode[edit]

This list has no definition on what it's supposed to list - while it claims to list precomposed Latin characters in Unicode, it actually contains many letters which are not precomposed at all (such as Ƃ) and even has an entire section on ligatures. Also, since it just uses the Unicode names, letters which are visually unrelated are grouped together (such as ħ and ł). Because of the lack of definition, I suggest that this list be deleted. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if there are errors, fix them. Discuss ambiguous one on the talk p. first. We do not delete everything that needs correction. DGG (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why the problems are unfixable, though, is font differences. For example, the Ŗ can have either a comma or a cedilla, and people would be constantly edit warring because their fonts show the letter differently. Stating that one letter has this exact diacritic is harder than you think. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Edit wars over minor details is not a reason to delete a page, and the edit history shows no evidence of any such edit warring occurring. Your example seems easy to settle: the Unicode standard specifies Ŗ as "R with cedilla", so unless there is a reliable source saying that the character is, or could be, an "R with comma below" then any such claim would be original research. If a reliable source were to be found for such a deviation from the standard, it could be indicated with a explanatory footnote. DHowell (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DHowell appears to have an accurate assessment of the situation. Mathmo ^Talk 03:19, 8 May 2008 (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.