Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptorium 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 Keep. Eluchil404 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Scriptorium Fonts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

no references supporting company notabilty provided or found NeilN 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Keep, article has improved significantly --NeilN 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC) I can't see any reason why this was nominated for deletion much less Speedy Delete. I'd class the delete request as attempted vandalism. -- Lumpy
 * Thanks Neil. I'm doing my best.  - Al --Thalkyudes 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:A7. The Islander 17:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Care to explain your reasoning? --NeilN 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP-7 and this article does not qualify for speedy delete under those criteria, so could we at least get the speedy delete removed for now as we work on resolving the normal delete process? - Al --Thalkyudes 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted in the article discussion, I don't see why this would have been flagged for deletion. Hell, it was flagged while I was still working on the second paragraph.  I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism, but it's a pretty cut and dried case.  This seems like a perfectly reasonable listing for a company with a substantial market presence in an industry where Wikipedia already has listings for a lot of other companies.  What's the big deal? - Al --Thalkyudes 00:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated in Notability (organizations and companies), "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable." --NeilN 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Only very rarely are articles written about fonts and even rarer are those written about a specific foundry or a specific font. Most of them are on the level of a one-line usenet post saying "X font is great."  I did include links to the source for all info in the entry, which was drawn from the page on Scriptorium Fonts on MyFonts and from the company website.  I've found some more material, but I'm not really sure what's worth adding.  I'd like to get this sorted out, because I could improve other entries in this category pretty easily.  For example, the entry for Emigre looks like they wrote it themselves, and they're one of the few foundries which really has been written about a lot so there's more material out there that's well substantiated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalkyudes (talk • contribs) 01:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added to the links a review, an article about Scriptorium from Whole Earth Magazine and a couple of other decent sources. I suppose this would have been easier if I'd started with a more controversial foundry.  What more is needed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalkyudes (talk • contribs) 01:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. I still feel that it qualifies for speedy under WP:CSD. Irrespective of my opinion, my opinion is just as valid as any other editors here, it stays. Please take a look at AfD Wikietiquette, and familiarise yourself with how an AfD works. Also, bear in mind that though I expressed the opinion 'Speedy Delete', it still requires the majority to agree with me for it to happen. The Islander 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I get a vote too, right? Of all the articles I've written this is the only one that's ever been flagged for deletion. I'm doing everything I can to make it a model listing, so bear with me - Al --Thalkyudes 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only does it not qualify for speedy - I have read the criteria for both speedy and regular deletion, you know - in its current form it clearly doesn't even qualify for delete on the basis of non-notability at all. Have you read the current version of the entry?  I realize it's just your opinion, just like any other editor's opinion, but any editor can be wrong.  Perhaps the test of a good editor is when he's willing to admit it.  - Al --Thalkyudes 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly documented with more neutral sources than anything else in this category. --Hanging Jack 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references may not be cited inline but they are there. —David Eppstein 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * David. Thanks for forwarding me the info on doing proper reference tags.  I assume that was you who sent them. I've now added properly linked references to the article. -Al --Thalkyudes 07:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW. I've made a lot of improvements to the article.  I'd be interested in feedback on the current quality of it. - Al --Thalkyudes 06:04, 1 September 2007 (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.