Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTF-2000

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 Redirect to Han unification --Stephen 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

UTF-2000

UTF-2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete: A single newsgroup posting exists about this topic. Hardly a reliable source, and no verifiable information. — Timwi (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. Unreliable source; no verifiable information; odd Google hits. Answers.com refers to original reference. Possibly redirect to Unicode or Han unification? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Han unification. This may or may not be notable but judging from both the content and the age of this article it's never going to be more than a stub so it should be found a better home with a bigger parent. It gets a single mention at Han unification, which could be expanded using the last two sentences from this article (the first two are context-setting). Or they could just be a footnote to its mention if that's what the editors there prefer – strikes me as an apt solution as it's a metaphorical footnote in the history of CJK character sets. The editors of Han unification are the best judges of what to do with the content as they can presumably read the sources, unlike most of us I suspect (Google finds another possible source in a link from here (half-way down under "Papers and Presentations") but even my browser can't read it, never mind me.) The only other substantive article that links to UTF-2000 is Unicode#Philosophical and completeness criticisms, but it's in the context of a summary of the same issues as the "controversy" part of Han unification#Rationale and controversy, so the wikilink can be replaced by a cross-ref to there without loss. Qwfp (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (dear me I got a bit carried away there, don't know why)

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.