Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fonts in Mac OS X


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

List of fonts in Mac OS X

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

Unencyclopedic and of questionable notability; WP:IINFO. Cybercobra. (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Cybercobra (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * strong keep The only policy reason for this to be deleted is: WP:IINFO is probably the most misused guideline in AfD disccusions, WP:IINFO includes: Plot summaries. Lyrics databases. Statistics. News reports. In which this is none of the four. Detailed list of all fonts, which, with a little work, can be referenced. Definetely encyclopedic. Ikip (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that those are merely examples of what falls under IINFO. The article is basically a glorified database dump. The proper place to direct users to for this material would be some Apple help page which certainly lists the fonts. It might very well be category-worthy though. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * this discusion included at: Talk:Macintosh ‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Macintosh ‎ Talk:List of Microsoft Windows fonts Ikip (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless the nominator provides a reasoning, I'll have to agree with Ikip. I can see no particular good reason to call a list of fonts unencyclopedic and since the nominator didn't give us one, no valid reason for deletion exists. - Mgm|(talk) 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful for finding fonts that are cross-compatible, for one thing. And per above.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Usefulness is not directly a criteron, otherwise lots of how-to material that's currently rejected would be acceptable. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is simply bizarre. Mlewan (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep An encyclopaedia is a list of articles, and this is a list of fonts. You can't gain yourself notability and coverage if you are a computer font. &#91;&#91;Andrew RACK&#93;&#93; (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, what? The font articles have more justification of notability than mere presence in a list article. Your comment seems like a non-sequitur. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * strong keep I don't really care for all the endless discussion about what WP is and what it is not. This is a very useful article that I have referred to several times and it is the kind of article that I expect to see on WP. Why isn't List of Microsoft Windows fonts up for deletion as well?Connectionfailure (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't know said article existed to be honest. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is kept (looks like it will, and I tend to agree), I think it should be moved to → List of Mac OS X fonts. Seems like a more encyclopedic title, and it would also match the Microsoft Windows article that was mentioned.  Jamie ☆ S93  23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even stronger keep endorse move to List of Mac OSX fonts. This is a useful and encyclopaedic article. pablo hablo. 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate collection of information. _R_ (talk) 16:59, 25 April 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.