Deletion of Code page 875

Comment: At least until someone demonstrates a successful stand-up of ALL code pages in Wikibooks and improved guidelines for tranwikification.  I didn't come to WikiPedia to script/automate ... and certainly not to do it rushed in the nice long days of summer while adjusting to ''new-normals'' while transitioning through lockdown states.   is mor ethe gist of thinking but it doesn't really cover transwiki, and that may not be the best option anyway.  A template such as :AwaitingPossibleWikiBooking might as be a compromise.  Is there a rush
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: I'd look at these as essentially part of the EBCDIC article (or other encodings for other similar pages), offering encyclopedic detail that would be awkward to fit into the main page due to length. I'm not aware of this being ''explicitly'' addressed in policy — but I do think it is ''implicitly'' supported by the documentation of standard practice (admittedly not policies) between  and (depending on how one reads it, see discussion below): note how CONSPLIT wants notability for the split topics, but such is distinctly absent from the practice documented under SIZESPLIT. I don't think  should (or is intended to, probably) discourage content that would be otherwise acceptable if not for being lengthy. —&#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SIZESPLIT||WP:CONSPLIT||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I'm still not seeing any evidence this passes GNG, the relevant notability guideline.  What I'm seeing is  excuses for why this should be exempt from notability.  Reproducing all of the code pages would be  at the main EBCDIC page, and stand-alone pages need to meet notability guidelines. This is the sort of thing WikiSource is for - the contents of documents that while they do have some interest, they do not meet the guidelines for getting their own article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: these codepage reproductions, per : they are not encyclopedia articles and so do not belong in the encyclopedia. None of these topics is individually and independently notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I don't buy that all of this meets , while we are happy to keep truckloads of articles on sportspeople who have touched a football in an international game. Also, we appear to be having articles on all Unicode blocks (eg. Tamil_(Unicode_block)) sourced entirely to primary sources, though I am not sure how important EBCDIC is as compared to Unicode
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)