170:
in a deletion review that failed to actually demonstrate that the subject was in fact notable. So I'm nominating it for deletion again for exactly the same reason as the first time. The article is still a basic stub (though it looks larger due to the lists of
Unicode blocks), and I can't see anyone
295:
Nobody does formal reviews of fonts. Designers talk about the appropriateness of a font in a specific setting. Code2000 doesn't get any merit on its aesthetics. It gets mentioned because it is one of the most comprehensive pan-Unicode fonts that is available. Those mentions are to use it as a
338:, as well as three other pages in the Unicode Consortium site. It is shareware, with sufficiently liberal conditions that it is almost freeware; hence very widely disseminated. It is widely cited in many unaffiliated sites as an easy way to get coverage for particular languages.
239:. I couldn't view many of the special symbols on Knowledge (using Firefox under Linux) until I learned about this font. It's the most complete freeware/shareware implementation of the Unicode standard that exists in the world today. What could be more notable than that?
276:
is only a guideline, and it seems that this font is important enough to include without meeting its requirements. In addition to the ample evidence of importance provided during the DRV, note that the font is recommended as a "useful resource" by the
296:
fallback font, if a font for a specific
Unicode Subrange is not installed on one's computer. I'd also suggest that with an AfD 22 June 2007. Deleted 27 June 2007, and Deletion overruled 16 July 2007, the nominator is
99:
93:
155:
185:
167:
56:
163:
88:
352:
206:) was also responsible for the first nomination, and was aware of the DRV. This re-nomination is a pointless waste of time (or maybe
17:
23:
358:
304:
285:
260:
243:
227:
214:
175:
71:
203:
128:
123:
132:
346:
373:
115:
43:
372:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
253:
341:
301:
240:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
320:
197:
192:
consensus that Code2000 is a highly notable font, with ample supporting documentation. User
297:
207:
252:
Having coverage in reliable sources. Help viewing special symbols on
Knowledge goes in
119:
66:
278:
149:
317:
282:
273:
257:
224:
193:
172:
335:
211:
111:
77:
62:
300:.(I thought that they had been previous AfDs, but I can't find them.)
334:. This is a notable font, which gets a significant mention in the
366:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
24:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Code2000 (second nomination)
145:
141:
137:
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
100:Articles for deletion/Code2000 (second nomination)
166:on the grounds that it was not notable, and then
376:). No further edits should be made to this page.
210:?), and should be speedily closed as a keep. --
94:Articles for deletion/Code2000 (2nd nomination)
223:What supporting documentation? I see none. --
8:
314:This is an unusual and widely useful font.
86:
7:
84:
188:barely a month ago resulted in an
31:
336:Unicode consortium resources page
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
89:Articles for deletion/Code2000
1:
359:15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
305:13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
286:13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
272:. The DRV was unanimous.
261:12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
244:11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
228:11:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
215:11:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
176:10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
72:15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
59:only one month ago. — Carl
393:
369:Please do not modify it.
39:Please do not modify it.
254:Help:Special characters
83:AfDs for this article:
55:as this went through
324:2007-08-19 15:10 Z
279:unicode consortium
356:
325:
162:This article was
70:
22:(Redirected from
384:
371:
344:
342:Duae Quartunciae
323:
153:
135:
60:
41:
27:
392:
391:
387:
386:
385:
383:
382:
381:
380:
374:deletion review
367:
126:
110:
107:
105:
102:
81:
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
390:
388:
379:
378:
362:
361:
328:
327:
308:
307:
289:
288:
266:
265:
264:
263:
247:
246:
233:
232:
231:
230:
218:
217:
171:expanding it.
160:
159:
106:
104:
103:
98:
96:
91:
85:
82:
80:
75:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
389:
377:
375:
370:
364:
363:
360:
357:
354:
351:
348:
343:
337:
333:
330:
329:
326:
322:
319:
313:
310:
309:
306:
303:
299:
294:
291:
290:
287:
284:
280:
275:
271:
268:
267:
262:
259:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
242:
238:
235:
234:
229:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
216:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
169:
165:
157:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
108:
101:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
79:
76:
74:
73:
68:
64:
58:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
368:
365:
349:
339:
331:
315:
311:
292:
269:
241:DavidCBryant
236:
200:
190:overwhelming
189:
181:
161:
52:
50:
38:
35:
332:Speedy Keep
237:Speedy keep
182:Speedy keep
53:speedy keep
168:un-deleted
302:jonathon
298:WP:POINT
208:WP:POINT
204:contribs
156:View log
112:Code2000
78:Code2000
318:Michael
164:deleted
129:protect
124:history
283:JulesH
258:Ptcamn
225:Ptcamn
194:Ptcamn
173:Ptcamn
133:delete
212:KSmrq
150:views
142:watch
138:links
16:<
353:cont
347:talk
312:Keep
293:Keep
274:WP:N
270:Keep
256:. --
198:talk
184:The
146:logs
120:talk
116:edit
67:talk
186:DRV
154:– (
63:CBM
57:DRV
321:Z.
281:.
148:|
144:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
65:·
355:)
350:·
345:(
340:—
316:—
201:·
196:(
158:)
152:)
114:(
69:)
61:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.