Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CJK fonts


 * 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   'There seems to be clear consensus to keep and improve CJK; the consensus on Open source unicode is not as clear, but since most of the discussion was about CJK, I'm closing as  no consensus on Open source unicode'', which can if anyone wishes be renominated separately. .    DGG''' ( talk ) 08:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

List of CJK fonts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a repository of links and files. If the fonts are notable we can certainly have articles about them, but compiling them into a list for the purpose of reader access is not in conformity with Wikipedia's purpose. If readers are looking for Chinese/Japanese font support, Google is their friend.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is essentially the same thing, a list of fonts:

Inter change  able  23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment lists are a legit form of Wikipedia article. Lists must meet a notability criteria, however. --Kvng (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but these are essentially lists of links, which goes against WP:NOT. I would call the notability of font lists into question, too. Inter  change  able  22:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you done any research to try and determine whether this list particular list meets the notability criteria?


 * Keep lists are a valid class of WP article. No apparent attempt to establish whether these lists are notable before nomination. --Kvng (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete As I said on the article's talk page a few months ago (I was 207.161.99.42 at the time), it's not at all clear what the criteria are for inclusion on this list, and if the items already listed are typical, then ANY free font in the world could be listed. Most of the fonts listed only cover a small part of the Unicode space (e.g. MPH 2B Damase which has no CJK characters, and the Ghostscript fonts which are Latin-only).  A couple of Japanese-only fonts are listed; and even the ones like Code2000 that cover most of the BMP don't have the multiple glyphs per character that would be needed to cover more than one of the set {Chinese, Japanese, Korean}.  "The SIL fonts" is listed, but that's just an organization that publishes fonts, none of which individually covers a large fraction of Unicode although together they do, so we might as well say "The Adobe fonts" or "The Microsoft fonts."  And "open-source" is a poor descriptor to apply to fonts in general, because very few fonts have anything resembling source code.  If we mean "free" we should say "free"; it's not the same thing as "open-source."  But there are plenty of better-maintained and better-defined lists of fonts on Wikipedia already. Lists may be a legitmate class of Wikipedia article but this is not a good list because it has no clear definition of what could or couldn't be included.  206.45.176.62 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. My comment above was intended for the deletion discussion of Open-source_Unicode_typefaces, not List of CJK fonts.  I don't know why, but the deletion notice on that page links to this discussion.  I think Open-source_Unicode_typefaces should be deleted.  I'd vote Weak keep on List of CJK fonts, but I'd also like to register my vote for Link the template to the correct deletion discussion. 206.45.176.62 (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a common practice at Afd to nominate more than one related article for deletion in a single discussion. This page is the deletion discussion for both List of CJK fonts and Open-Source Unicode Typefaces. Inter  change  able  15:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   04:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep vote for List of CJK fonts. This is more than a mere collection of links, so perhaps a better proposition is to augment the article with history on why native system and other fonts are relevant to efficient presentation of web content across several Asian languages (in this case the CJK subset). Additionally, adding a table of the common system fonts would provide the relevance argument, as web designers need to have a source of native font references to put into their style sheets and know that they are web-safe fonts. As mentioned above, lists are a valid class of WP article, and it would appear that notability criteria has been been met by the many years of web development and millions of pages encoded in the fonts specified. I personally spent several hours of research before coming across this article, which saved me the effort of researching what had already been compiled from apparently reputable sources. Inadequacy that can be corrected shouldn't disqualify the article from being retained. GapGrin (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for List of CJK fonts, no opinion for the other article. I'm slightly inclined to say that List of CJK fonts is an informative page and is worthy of being kept. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for both. The currently quality is dire, but I think the better solution is to improve them rather than removing them. I, for one, just wanted to look up such list. However, I do think the any non-free fonts that is not included in any major Operating System should not be included in the CJK article. --Ahyangyi (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2012 (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.