Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/۞

۞ (U+06DE)

Yet another article about a single Unicode character. Unless something else can be said about it, it should be deleted or merged into a larger article, list, or table. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/░ for a related AfD. --MarkSweep✍ 06:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly useful article on a Unicode character. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why not run a bot to create ~65,000 similar articles? --MarkSweep✍ 06:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to whatever the name of the character is (in English) before proceeding. Alphax ^τεχ 06:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there's nothing to say about it beyond what's there. Or if there is, someone can always write an article about it later. This substub will be of no help in that case. Tuf-Kat 07:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Unicode characters. Zach (Sound Off) 07:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is getting silly. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 11:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ludicrous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rub El Hizb. The symbol has some Arabic uses under that name and I've added those I know of. I don't believe in keeping all Unicode characters, but in this particular case there is something useful to be said about it. Dlyons493 13:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Rub El Hizb or Delete. android79 14:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
move and redirect to Rub El Hizb. In contrast to ░, for which I voted delete, this character has cultural significance and some information in the article. (note: a list of all unicode characters would be way too long on one page). — brighterorange (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep and possible rename - unlike ░ and ⅝, which aren't as notable. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also please note this article, which doesn't even link properly as it's a non-printing combining character. This definitely has to be moved, if it's worth keeping at all (I haven't AFD'd it yet, as that's not easy either!) sjorford #£@%&$?! 18:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect to Rub El Hizb, per above. -- BDAbramson ^talk 16:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, but please stop making unsearchable articles. Gazpacho 18:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who is going to search for this? Pilatus 18:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some list of unicode charaters. Oleg Alexandrov 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, redundant article. — Phil Welch 22:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is unbelievable. And is it even searchable?—encephalon ὲγκέφαλον 00:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rub El Hizb. --Revolución (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this article was created by a sock puppet of banned vandal User:JarlaxleArtemis for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grue 18:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate as per Dlyons493. If not than redirect. Nabla 20:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unicode is just a particular coding of this symbol Rub El Hizb. --Vsion 07:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest having a redirect from U+06DE to Rub El Hizb. I've added the information to the latter and there's no point in having an unsearchable title. Mind you, I don't see many people actually searching on U+06DE but at least they'd have the possibility (and that could be mentioned in the Unicode article). This would work generally, allowing creation of links to any Unicode glyphs that had something useful to be said about them. Dlyons493 13:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to recently created Rub El Hizb, don't delete. -- Curps 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT as per Vsion and Curps. —Phil | Talk 09:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]