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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ELOT 927[edit]

ELOT 927 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as a non-notable character set. It was prodded for that reason but was challenged after deletion by the article's creator. The article should be deleted as it is not notable (as mentioned). This is because the only reference is a text file of the characters (which is not enough to prove notability) and a WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hellenic Organization for Standardization; there's no reason to include the table on that page. I'd also support deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. ELOT 927 is a notable character set supported by many dot matrix and line printers as well as terminals (like DECs) in the past. It is still mentioned in various places today. Even support for it can still be found occasionally today as in protocols like Kermit or languages like Perl. I have added some info and improved some refs, but would certainly be able to throw in at least a dozen references with a bit of research (if I had the time). I find it ridiculous that notable topics get nominated for deletion on the grounds of "I don't know it" or "I don't care about it" and a quick Google search. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such we have a duty not only to document current mainstream topics, but also to preserve notable historical information like this one. This is relevant for implementors of drivers and data/code conversion tools as well as for historical research. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Matthiaspaul: The sources provided do not seem to make the article notable. ^[1] trivially mentions the subject, ^[2] just has a character table and a short description which is not significant coverage, ^[3] is also not significant coverage (just the character table) and ^[4] is also not significant coverage (just the character table). Since the sources don't cover the subject with significant coverage, the subject is not notable and should still be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, notability is a property of a subject and not dependent on the current state of an article about it. The property can exist even though an article may still be unreferenced for as long as sources could be brought by. In this case, the article already has some top references even though it is still a very new article. The fact that they contain a character table and/or short description is significant coverage. If it would not be important, it would not have been included in these references.

As I said, we (and that includes you, the nominator, who has the duty to do your homework before nominating articles for deletion) could bring by many more references, for example most printer manuals of printers supporting the character set will discuss it. We just need someone owning one of these printers or checking a library. But it is not really necessary, as in general all character sets used in mass-produced computers or devices and all character sets that are or were used in significant machines (for example in solitaire computers of the main-frame era) are encyclopedic information of current and/or historical relevance, thus notable. They are sought after by implementors of system drivers, to carry out data/program conversions, and for historical research. Wikipedia is expected to have information about them and we have a long-time project going on to cover them here and are happy for any knowledgeable editor in this area. Your actions of WP:HOUNDING the creator of this article by nominating virtually anything this new editor created for deletion is working directly against the goals of this project. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meanwhile added a bunch of more sources. Even some current printers still support the character set. The nominator clearly didn't invest the necessary energy to search for sources before nomination. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per improvements by Matthiaspaul. Thanks you. Arguments put forth by KAP03 are unconvincing. Online sources are scarce so we need to err towards keep on technical topics which predated the internet. ~Kvng (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2017 (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.