Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faux Cyrillic


 * 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 per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh  00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Faux Cyrillic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a made up term. No sources in the article support the existance of a "faux cyrillic" typography. Tagged as being pure original research since April. A primary editor appeared to agree with this assessment on the article's talk page. A Google search produces 690 results for "Faux Cyrillic" typography, but most are from sites using Wikipedia content. Fails WP:OR, WP:NFT, and the example section fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is by analogy with the faux Chinese typefaces sometimes associated with cheap Chinese restaurants in the United States and Canada, with Roman characters made up of strokes of varying widths, designed to resemble Chinese ideographs. The term may be uncommon, but the typographic usage is well-documented, as shown in the article. --Eastmain (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The phenomenon undeniably exists and is undeniably notable. This search finds hundreds of references even after references to Wikipedia are screened out. Google searches for phrases like "fake Cyrillic", "mock Cyrillic," "mock Russian letters", and similar phrases also produce many results. —phh (t/c) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its probable existance doesn't mean it is notable. Please provide actual, reliable references providing significant coverage of "Faux Cyrillic", that does not include wiki mirrors, forums, etc. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Whatever it is called (and "faux Cyrillic" isn't necessarily ideal), it exists. The article name can be improved as can its content, but that is no reason to delete. --Macrakis (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its existance doesn't mean it is notable. Where is the significant, third party coverage in reliable sources? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are reading only part of the notability policy. It continues:
 * it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. (WP:Notability)
 * It is quite likely that some typographic source has discussed the use of Cyrillic-style letters in English-language (and other Roman-alphabet) contexts and that it simply hasn't been found yet. --Macrakis (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After 4 years, you think some are suddenly going to pop up, despite none being found in any google searches and not a single person saying keep providing a single reliable source to even validate the claim that such phenomenon is called "Faux Cyrillic." ? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Google search is not the be-all and end-all of research. The phenomenon may well be discussed in the middle of chapter 23 of some typography or design book, or in a political science study of symbolism in the Cold War or whatever.  There are many WP articles that have been around for years without reliable sources, when a few hours of library research can actually add useful things. As for the name, it may well appear under a variety of different names and there may not be a standard name for it. --Macrakis (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Google books do a pretty good job finding the word in the middle of chapter 23 of some obscure books. :P Of course, being a two word mention in the middle of a book wouldn't make it anymore notable. Considering no one can even prove there is a single commonly used name for it only confirms that it is WP:OR and personal opinion. Again, where are the reliable sources. If there are books on it, it would exist.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. The libraries should burn their books.  They are all scanned and indexed and artificial intelligence will find everything you want even if it doesn't have a standard name. NOT. --Macrakis (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to be facetious (and no one better dare attempt to burn a book in front of me!) Nor are books scanned and indexed by AI, this isn't Star Trek. Back to the topic without the silly sidenote, without sources, you ca't even claim such marketing ploys are, in fact, "faux" anything, nor have a valid name for the article. You don't get to just make up a term and stick the article under it while waiting four+ years for there to actually be a standard term for it. We aren't in the business of declaring future notability and then just waiting for the world to catch up. If it is notable, again, where are the sources. The burden is on those who want to keep it to actually find something even confirming it is something notable and that this article does not falsely claim it is "faux" anything and beyond simple text stylization. Animal Planet's new logo has the M laying on its side. Will you call that "faux English" or call it what it is, a stylized way of writing the name. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the fact that it exists is not enough. There are few references, none that indicate this has been covered in any depth by independent sources, and much of the article reeks of original research. Reyk  YO!  23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I created the article to provide a sensible place for material which started to litter a series of individual Cyrillic letter articles. There, it would have remained a nuisance of indiscriminate bits, continually reintroduced by various editors.  I suggest it remain in one place, prominently tagged as unreferenced, where it represents an integrated topic, and where we can keep an eye on it until hopefully a reference presents itself. —Michael Z. 2008-07-31 23:03 z 
 * Keep The provable widespread existence of something makes it notable. But there does not seem to be any standard terminology. DGG (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (Was I the primary editor who appeared to agree with this assessment on the article's talk page?). Take a look at Global and Multinational Advertising, Basil G. Englis, Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994 ISBN 0805813950, 9780805813951 page 123 on the subject of the US vodka brand GEOЯGI. It's got an ISBN, so I reckon it's a kosher source. --catslash (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC). It's true that this book does not use the term faux cyrillic (or any other snappy name), so this is probably not be a recognized term. Is there a requirement that the article title as a whole must be a recognized term? Are Methods of computing square roots, List of coronae on Venus, Book of Mormon weights and measures, 18th Academy Awards, Languages of Arda valid article titles? --catslash (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: this has some interest for people who would be interested in the topic. No need to delete it, even if it isn't properly sourced, or the article name cannot be agreed upon. V85 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2008 (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.