Deletion of Code page 875

Comment: I really hate to see these go, I would make the argument of  where the topic of EBCDIC satisfies the notability guidelines and the list meets "''It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.''" As a software engineer I can say that I find these lists to be very notable. When I searched github and other source code repositories I find over 4 million references to EBCDIC. If I narrow my search down to just "IBM code page 875" I am finding thousands of projects using search terms such as CCSID 875, IBM-875, CODEPAGE_875, cptable_875, CP_875, CCSID875 and so forth. If you are reading this... please spend some time using those search terms to find references to "IBM code page 875". Am I the only engineer voting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSOFT)

Comment: Does anyone think Code page should be deleted? I don't. These pages support Code page. Removing that support does not improve the encyclopedia. Merging all this to Code page does not improve the encyclopedia. There may be policy arguments for deleting all this but if it doesn't result in an improvement to the encyclopedia, I can't support that reading of the policy - 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:NORULES)

Comment: Thankyou Barkeep49.  I had offered to look at this as a migrator(transwiki'er) of last resort however deletion of source articles occurred before standup of WikiBook was achieved.  The key issue is, and I believe this is especially important when handling bulk work of several articles of one type, that discussion is undertaken with WikiProject to see if a solution can be agreed and a volunteer task group set up if not, which is in the spirit of  Criteria#3.  In terms of the (non consensus) closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBCDIC 389 it is perhaps disappointing the recommendation was not to consult with WikiProject rather than suggest a bulk nomination.  In any event the migration-and-stand-up failure of the EBCDIC code pages (at least up to this point) has caused a hiatus which should not have occurred, and indicates it was not totally trivial.  It is often said AfD is not cleanup, and AfD is certainly not the place to plan a transwiki of this magnitude.  There is a further problem that the issue of code pages other than EBCDIC have not been considered, so will we end up with the senario that half are on WikiBooks and half on WikiPedia which looks stupid.  So there is a real case for considering all code pages rather than one and if presenting on WikiBooks how may they be best stood up.  Understanding the totalilty of the problem also helps determine the level of automation that would be optimal for the whole job.  As per a merge result from AfD its important at least one merge !voter is willing to undertake a (hopefully non-trivial merge).  In this case I believe {{u|Mark Viking}} was the first transwiki !voter but to a degree indicated he was not was not intending to take on the job.  In view of the non-success of standing up a WikiBook at this point transwiki !voters may need to consider their position.  Thankyou
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The  and  rules don't really apply (I've replied to the other points separately). More to the point, I don't see how this attempt can end without removing ALL articles referring to code pages (and not just the EBCDIC ones). If that is the final goal, this (as was mentioned at the rticles_for_deletion/EBCDIC_389|original AfD which was not resolved), this should be taken further up. In fact, most of the comments by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTREPOSITORY||WP:A)