Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faux Greek

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 delete. None of the arguments for keeping address the WP:OR and lack of WP:RS brought up by the nomination. Shereth 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Greek[edit]

Made up term by a single editor. Absolutely no sources at all support this "faux greek" typography, and editor noted in my talk page that it was a name they came up with for "this phenomen" and gimmick.[1] Google search produces all of 6 results for "Faux Greek" typography. Pure WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure WP:OR -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:NFT and WP:OR. Reyk _YO! 05:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly needs to be cleaned up, and explained more thoroughly, but I see it as a companion article for Dog Latin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.46.131 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as someone's WP:OR Artene50 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I started this article. The phenomenon of using Greek letters in Latin contexts -- especially Σ for E -- is real (see Greek (TV series) and My Big Fat Greek Wedding; cf. also Faux Cyrillic). I totally agree that "Faux Greek" is an arbitrary name, and I would be happy if we could find a better one (especially if there is an established one). Under WP policy, the correct remedy for that is to move the article, not to delete it. I also agree that the article is currently at a near-stub level of development. Again, under WP policy, the correct remedy is to expand the article, not to delete it. --Macrakis (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you agree that this is an arbitrary name, something you made up, it does not belong here, that is OR. Non notable as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will change the title to "Greek letters used in English text". Does that help? --Macrakis (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Macrakis has renamed the article to Greek letters used in English text. It does not negate the article being pure unsourced personal opinion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Faux Cyrillic can stand without complaint, so should this. The article does need a bit of help, but the phenomenon is very real. Roman à clef (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it has stood without complaint. Its been tagged as OR since April and while longer, it is also unsourced. It does produce more google hits than Faux Greek (690), but quick scanning those results, most were from Wikipedia mirrors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is by analogy with the faux Chinese typefaces sometimes associated with cheap Chinese restaurants in the United States and Canada, with Roman characters made up of strokes of varying widths, designed to resemble Chinese ideographs. The term may be uncommon, but the typographic usage is well-documented, as shown in the article. --Eastmain (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.