Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of simulation typefaces (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 no consensus. Opinions are basically all over the shop, and after two relists there is still no agreement as to what to do. If people feel a merge would be a better compromise, that can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

List of simulation typefaces
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Samples of sans serif typefacesArticles for deletion/List of simulation typefaces (2nd nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list contains 14 items, 12 of which are not notable enough to have articles of their own. Previously kept at AfD in 2012 on the basis of having notable entries. You could just remove them but that would leave a "list" of two entries which isn't very useful. —  Scott  •  talk  15:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: The term "simulation typeface" is itself not sourceable; see below. —  Scott  •  talk  12:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed them now which really highlights how pointless this list is. —  Scott  •  talk  10:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Disregard this, the name is something made up by an editor here - see below. —  Scott  •  talk  12:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While the alterations haven't been carried out, the ambiguity in the participants' suggestions make me feel another week wouldn't do any harm and might be beneficial
 * Why not move to simulation typeface (a redirect to this) and make it into a stub with a list in it; with the samples, but without the red links? (ping me if so, and I'll do it - wait a few days I am not here all the time). Deleting wouldn't hurt either, I guess - Nabla (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, you could do that. It'd be really really stubby as is but that doesn't hurt. —  Scott  •  talk  14:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * delete Only the first of the three references even contains the word "simulation", and in that case it isn't at all clear that it's mean as a term-of-art. Book searching was even worse: the WP article seems to be the only genuine hit. the notion of "simulation typefaces" doesn't seem to be a thing, at least not under that name. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * keep The notability rules are for the article, not individual content. There is no requirement that each part of a list must be individually notable, or even most of a list.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...which ignored the core problem that there isn't a "thing" for this to be a list of. If someone can find another name, so be it, but I didn't. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List of typefaces and Simulation typeface to Typeface (merging some things if necessary). I don't really think there's enough coverage of simulation typefaces for a full standalone article, but it's already covered at those two articles, meaning there is an appropriate redirect target where it can be covered according to WP:DUE.(if there is enough content for a standalone article, I'd suggest a move to simulation typeface as suggested by  and reverse merge Typeface) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good shout - I hadn't seen either of those article sections and I agree with both of your suggestions of redirects. —  Scott  •  talk  12:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect possibly with some merging, as suggested above; keeps topic covered but avoids having a skeletal list lurching around. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on naming: the two sources that actually name these things call them 'ethnic typefaces' for what it's worth. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Key observation. The first of those two sources ( and ) is very poor and refers directly to the second one, so I'd argue we only have one source for that name. Google Books doesn't seem to have anything for "ethnic typeface" at all. "Simulation typeface" seems to be a term coined by when creating the list in 2007 and added to Typeface at the . Likewise, "mimicry typefaces" only appeared as a section name there, having previously been listed as "Typefaces based upon non-Roman-alphabet writing systems". With only a single reference in a magazine article to justify the topic's existence at all, I'm back to thinking that this should be deleted.  —  Scott  •  talk  15:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Nabla and redirect all those red links to the section. The samples would be helpful to alot of people; don't orphan them. I know the best wiki (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The title "simulation typeface" is no longer valid as noted above. Also Wikipedia isn't a collection of samples for every typeface. There are plenty of sites that are. We keep it to the typefaces that are notable enough for their own article. —  Scott  •  talk  10:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete—given what's there, there's really not much for a real list, and I share Scott's concern that the distinction Wikipedia is using for this list isn't actually based on reliable scholarship. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but change into an article with a list section. Not yet sure what the name should be, but probably something like: Ethnic/Mimicry/Simulation/Faux typeface. Here is another source. The fonts in the list don't always need articles, but there should be refs (not to a buy site). Here is a Japanese (Katakana) font that looks like Old English. StrayBolt (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on naming "Simulation font" was used before this article was created in 2007. Here is the paper Characters, Glyphs and Beyond using the term in 2003. Here is the font Faux Arabic using term in 2001 (or at least Jan 2003). A source in my prior post has 6 more terms which I will add to the article. StrayBolt (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, with no prejudice against recreation.  I'm not convinced that "simulation font" or "simulation typeface" is actually a recognized term (despite a smattering of uses).  I think we could have a useful article on the topic of fonts which, by their stereographic styling, are meant to evoke certain ethnicities, with Wonton font being a good example.    Such an article would need to approach the topic in a scholarly way, with good sources.  This is not that article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2019 (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.