530:
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 Knowledge already. Lists may be a legitmate class of Knowledge article but this is not a good list because it has no clear definition of what could or couldn't be included.
651:. 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
209:, Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Furthermore, Knowledge 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 Knowledge's purpose. If readers are looking for Chinese/Japanese font support, Google is their friend.
710:
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.
529:
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
655:
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.
174:
584:
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.
168:
234:
229:
286:
238:
129:
221:
382:
358:
334:
310:
134:
591:
441:
268:
102:
97:
106:
571:
531:
698:
225:
89:
695:
189:
17:
156:
555:
547:
217:
54:; the consensus on Open source unicode is not as clear, but since most of the discussion was about CJK, I'm closing as
150:
739:
596:
446:
273:
40:
720:
702:
665:
635:
601:
579:
539:
517:
488:
451:
422:
398:
374:
350:
326:
302:
278:
71:
146:
575:
535:
212:
I am also nominating the following related page because it is essentially the same thing, a list of fonts:
93:
196:
735:
692:
513:
36:
586:
436:
263:
182:
657:
716:
472:
lists are a valid class of WP article. No apparent attempt to establish whether these lists are
162:
661:
648:
563:
551:
386:
362:
338:
314:
290:
85:
77:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
734:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
554:. I don't know why, but the deletion notice on that page links to this discussion. I think
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
682:
613:
509:
498:
476:
456:
Have you done any research to try and determine whether this list particular list meets the
652:
473:
457:
410:
435:
which goes against WP:NOT. I would call the notability of font lists into question, too.
656:
Inadequacy that can be corrected shouldn't disqualify the article from being retained.
626:
484:
418:
712:
206:
67:
255:
123:
616:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
546:
Wait a minute. My comment above was intended for the deletion discussion of
501:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
480:
414:
62:
677:, no opinion for the other article. I'm slightly inclined to say that
728:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
409:
lists are a legit form of
Knowledge article. Lists must meet a
58:, which can if anyone wishes be renominated separately.
251:
247:
243:
119:
115:
111:
681:
is an informative page and is worthy of being kept. --
181:
568:
Link the template to the correct deletion discussion
623:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
508:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
742:). No further edits should be made to this page.
287:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
195:
8:
566:, but I'd also like to register my vote for
381:Note: This debate has been included in the
357:Note: This debate has been included in the
333:Note: This debate has been included in the
309:Note: This debate has been included in the
285:Note: This debate has been included in the
383:list of Korea-related deletion discussions
380:
359:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
356:
335:list of China-related deletion discussions
332:
311:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
308:
284:
431:Yes, but these are essentially lists of
50:There seems to be clear consensus to
7:
56:no consensus on Open source unicode
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
558:should be deleted. I'd vote
556:Open-source_Unicode_typefaces
548:Open-source_Unicode_typefaces
218:Open-source Unicode typefaces
759:
731:Please do not modify it.
721:19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
703:06:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
666:05:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
636:04:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
602:15:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
580:03:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
540:03:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
518:00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
489:04:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
452:22:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
423:20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
399:05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
375:05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
351:05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
327:05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
303:05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
279:23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
72:08:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
52:keep and improve CJK
653:notability criteria
458:notability criteria
411:notability criteria
48:The result was
701:
679:List of CJK fonts
675:List of CJK fonts
649:List of CJK fonts
638:
634:
564:List of CJK fonts
552:List of CJK fonts
520:
401:
377:
353:
329:
305:
86:List of CJK fonts
78:List of CJK fonts
750:
733:
690:
687:
633:
631:
624:
622:
618:
599:
594:
589:
507:
503:
449:
444:
439:
395:
392:
389:
371:
368:
365:
347:
344:
341:
323:
320:
317:
299:
296:
293:
276:
271:
266:
259:
241:
200:
199:
185:
137:
127:
109:
34:
758:
757:
753:
752:
751:
749:
748:
747:
746:
740:deletion review
729:
683:
627:
625:
611:
597:
592:
587:
496:
447:
442:
437:
393:
390:
387:
369:
366:
363:
345:
342:
339:
321:
318:
315:
297:
294:
291:
274:
269:
264:
232:
216:
142:
133:
100:
84:
81:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
756:
754:
745:
744:
724:
723:
705:
668:
641:
640:
639:
620:
619:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
543:
542:
523:
522:
521:
505:
504:
493:
492:
491:
479:nomination. --
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
426:
425:
403:
402:
378:
354:
330:
306:
261:
260:
203:
202:
139:
80:
75:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
755:
743:
741:
737:
732:
726:
725:
722:
718:
714:
709:
706:
704:
700:
697:
694:
688:
686:
680:
676:
672:
669:
667:
663:
659:
654:
650:
646:
643:
642:
637:
632:
630:
621:
617:
615:
610:
609:
603:
600:
595:
590:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
572:206.45.176.62
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:
541:
537:
533:
532:206.45.176.62
528:
525:
524:
519:
515:
511:
506:
502:
500:
495:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
471:
468:
467:
459:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
440:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
424:
420:
416:
413:, however. --
412:
408:
405:
404:
400:
396:
384:
379:
376:
372:
360:
355:
352:
348:
336:
331:
328:
324:
312:
307:
304:
300:
288:
283:
282:
281:
280:
277:
272:
267:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
236:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
214:
213:
210:
208:
205:According to
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
136:
131:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
79:
76:
74:
73:
69:
65:
64:
59:
57:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
730:
727:
707:
684:
678:
674:
670:
644:
628:
612:
567:
559:
526:
497:
469:
432:
406:
262:
211:
204:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
61:
55:
51:
49:
47:
31:
28:
510:Ron Ritzman
169:free images
629:Sandstein
736:talk page
708:Weak keep
671:Weak keep
647:vote for
560:Weak keep
37:talk page
738:or in a
713:Ahyangyi
696:contribs
614:Relisted
499:Relisted
130:View log
39:or in a
658:GapGrin
474:notable
407:Comment
235:protect
230:history
175:WPΒ refs
163:scholar
103:protect
98:history
593:change
550:, not
527:Delete
477:before
443:change
433:links,
394:JAMMMY
370:JAMMMY
346:JAMMMY
322:JAMMMY
298:JAMMMY
270:change
239:delete
207:WP:NOT
147:Google
107:delete
699:email
588:Inter
438:Inter
385:. β
β
361:. β
β
337:. β
β
313:. β
β
289:. β
β
265:Inter
256:views
248:watch
244:links
190:JSTOR
151:books
135:Stats
124:views
116:watch
112:links
68:talk
60:.
16:<
717:talk
693:Talk
685:ζεζ°
673:for
662:talk
645:Keep
598:able
576:talk
536:talk
514:talk
485:talk
481:Kvng
470:Keep
448:able
419:talk
415:Kvng
388:DUCK
364:DUCK
340:DUCK
316:DUCK
292:DUCK
275:able
252:logs
226:talk
222:edit
183:FENS
157:news
120:logs
94:talk
90:edit
562:on
397:ββ
373:ββ
349:ββ
325:ββ
301:ββ
197:TWL
132:β’
128:β (
63:DGG
719:)
711:--
689:|
664:)
578:)
570:.
538:)
516:)
487:)
421:)
391:IS
367:IS
343:IS
319:IS
295:IS
254:|
250:|
246:|
242:|
237:|
233:|
228:|
224:|
177:)
122:|
118:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
70:)
715:(
691:β
660:(
574:(
534:(
512:(
483:(
460:?
417:(
258:)
220:(
201:)
193:Β·
187:Β·
179:Β·
172:Β·
166:Β·
160:Β·
154:Β·
149:(
141:(
138:)
126:)
88:(
66:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.