Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of useful Unicode symbols

List of useful Unicode symbols

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

This is an entirely subjective list, reflecting the article creator's ideas of which Unicode symbols are useful. All Unicode symbols are useful to somebody or they would not have been added to the Unicode Standard, and there are no reliable sources for deciding which symbols are useful enough to be included in a list of useful characters. This sort of arbitrary and subjective list is fine on someone's personal website or blog, but entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a subjective selection that duplicates material already covered in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia already has a lot of coverage of Unicode, as well as links to all the codepages in Wikibooks. Homoglyphs are already covered, e.g. Duplicate characters in Unicode. Essays and personal picks don't belong in what's supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia.

As mentioned, the definition of "useful" is unclear - is this any more useful than the content it duplicates? If it means useful to everybody in the world, then the selection is suspect. If it's specifically useful to Wikipedia editors, then in theory it could be moved to the Help namespace, but pages like Help:Special characters already exist and are more relevant. It maybe also falls foul of WP:NOTHOWTO, as a manual on how to create confusing user names. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically, this is an indiscriminate list based on the article creator's personal opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We already have List_of_Unicode_characters. If this is to be kept, it perhaps could be renamed to a more specific category of characters and modified consequently. PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have Unicode symbols. Presumably all of them are useful to someone. wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I appreciate the effort that has been put into this. Organizing symbols by function or use is more helpful to many than our more common organization by Unicode blocks. wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge this with Unicode symbols to List of Unicode symbols. Unicode symbols are a subset of Unicode characters; see Universal Character Set characters § Categories. I'd hate to delete this, while keeping the currently hacked-up Unicode symbols, where Unicode symbols § Symbol Block Table was copied without attribution from List of Unicode characters § Unicode symbols. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this article has now been expanded to include not only Unicode symbols but also any random characters that the editor thinks are interesting, including various ligatured Latin letters and CJK (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) ideographs that coincidentally vaguely resemble Latin letters. So the article is no longer a list of symbols, but is an arbitrary list of Unicode characters that one particular editor finds interesting. There is still not a single reference or indication why this is a notable list. BabelStone (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it does seem to be jumping the shark now. @AtErik1: you should pause your work on this, and discuss your rationale and strategy with us here. Don't ignore this discussion, as you would be headed for disappointment as the consensus is obviously leaning towards deleting all your work. wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if something is written in a way it is explicitly useful for readers, it's often written like a guide which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HEY why is there no notice posted on User talk:AtErik1? wbm1058 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it appears that it has not yet been posted to the relevant ~~source~~deletion sorting list(s) either (or at least, I don't see the related notices). PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]