Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dotum


 * 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    No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus below that deletion is necessary or appropriate for the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dotum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD contested by author. This is an unreferenced article about a specific Korean font. The article is not very informative or coherent and does not give any reason to think that the font is notable. A Google search does not suggest notability either. DanielRigal (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Our own page on East Asian sans-serif typefaces indicates "Dotum (돋움), DotumChe (돋움체), Gulim (굴림) – Korean version of the fonts found in Microsoft Windows, all regions of Windows XP or later." I fully realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but this at least explains why an article on this font is potentially notable.  I suspect that somebody with Korean language skills could dig out some sourcing for this.  Additionally, articles published such as [this article from the 8th International Symposium on Experimental and Efficient Algorithms], this article from the refereed proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, and this, and this Linux book, all indicate it is a standard / common font. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason none of those Google Books links will show me the book content, so I can't form an opinion on that, but maybe you are right. Being a Korean subject, my English language Google searching would have missed its notability if the best sources were in Korean and did not include the English name. Even so, I wonder whether there is much encyclopaedic we can say about it, apart from the above, that would provide enough content for its own article rather than a redirect to its coverage in East Asian sans-serif typeface? Does the Korean Wikipedia have an article on it that we can translate and use? I know that we do have articles on some very common/significant fonts but is this one significant enough? I am not saying it isn't. I am genuinely asking. This AfD on the list of Korea related deletions so I hope somebody with Korean language skills will look at it and can give us some advice. If you think it would help to tag the article for rescue or expert help then go ahead. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am basing my !vote to keep on the fact that the font is addressed in refereed journals covering typography. For google books, I think you may need to search on dotum+font directly yourself.  I've had the same thing happen to me when clicking on a google book page;  the content is freely viewable, but not if you go there directly!  In any case, I think the best course of action is to rewrite this article as a stub that is more coherent than it is now, and tag it for referencing.  It can always be merged to East Asian sans-serif typeface later if no Korean capable editors can expand and reference it further. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Dotum is for Korea what Tahoma (typeface) is for us Westerners, and the numerous Google Books hits for "Dotum font" seem to be evidence for that. The problem is, as the article stands currently, it does not even fulfill WP:STUB. Therefore, delete based on the low article quality. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - It's not hard to rewrite to a better quality stub, so a better question to answer is "Does this font meet notablity?"; I've rewritten the stub. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Flagged for rescue. I don't think the fate of an article about something specific to the Korean language ought to be solely decided by people discussing the subject only in English. Just sayin'... Mtiffany71 (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll try and rescue it, even get it to DYK. There are a decent number of korean sites that (seem) notable, and I'll look into it. Might take a bit though, considering my poor understanding of the korean language :P NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.