Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875
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
— User:Djm, 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)