Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faux Cyrillic (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Faux Cyrillic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Still Original research, still fails WP:N. Could be selectively merged into Cyrillic if you can't bring yourself to vote delete. Polarpanda (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The criterion for deletion is not that the current article is or isn't original research, but whether it could become a good article with better research. When this article grows up, I'd think it would make more sense for it to include all novelty letterforms based on non-Latin letters, including faux Chinese brushstroke fonts, faux Greek using Σ for E, etc.  But in the meantime, I think it's fine to have this article. --macrakis (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Although the title of the page (and the term 'faux cyrillic') may not be the best one (I'm sure that there must be a proper name for this kind of thing, like the 'faux Chinese' used by various Chinese restaurants, etc), the phonomena exists - and with the correct term, more sources could be found. I found a couple of sources that referred to this typographic usage as 'faux cyrillic' (see page 4 of 'Evolution of the tetrominostacking game: An historical design study of Tetris' by Will Jordan, 'Prehistories and Afterlives: The Packaging and Re-packaging of Soviet Rock' by Polly McMichael and page 132 of 'HYPERTEXTUAL ULTRASTRUCTURES: MOVEMENT AND CONTAINMENT IN TEXTS AND HYPERTEXTS' by Rosemarie L. Coste - and those are just 3 I found in a very quick search. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is a well-written informative article the presence of which enhances Wikipedia. It includes references already and I'm sure more could be found. Jan 1 naD  (talk • contrib) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More original research is possible here, you might even find more mentions of the term. You just won't be able to satisfy WP:N, however hard you try. Polarpanda (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to have sufficient references to meet WP:N, may need a better title though. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason as the first go round, which is that the notability of this subject is confirmed by sources. God forbid that this be merged into the article about the Cyrillic alphabet.  Looks like a lot of people can't bring themselves to vote delete. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - unless there are any new arguments since last time. The original OR/N charges have been addressed to some extent by a couple of references concerning the use of pseudo-cyrillic in 'foreign branding'. This material is of little relevance to true cyrillic; I understand it originally consisted of all mentions of pseudo-cyrillic cut from articles about individual cyrillic letters. --catslash (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well written and well documented. Where exactly is the original research? While there is no standard title for this topic, we are debating the concept, not the title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like ШP:БИOШ Mandsford (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Simulation fonts are not unusual. See Samples of simulation typefaces for more examples.--DThomsen8 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW in that no one aside from the nominator has said to delete (and that is over a half dozen arguments for keeping after c. four days of discussion), even the nominator acknowledges the possibility of a merge per WP:PRESERVE, and as a previous discussion closed as keep with similar "near-unanimity of response." Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:01, 26 December 2009 (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.