Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samples of sans serif typefaces

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. There is no consensus to delete or merge, however there is a strong sentiment (with which I happen to agree) that the articles should be renamed to "List of xyz typefaces" rather than "Samples of...". The sample images can remain, but these should be titled as proper list articles are. I won't mandate here that the articles be renamed, but I would highly encourage that they are renamed. If there is significant opposition to renaming the articles, then a discussion might need to take place first. If you need help moving the articles over redirects, contact me for assistance. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 17:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samples of sans serif typefaces[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an article. We do not host image galleries on Wikipedia. Apparently prodded in 2009 but it didn't show up with a warning when I prodded it today. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is already a good List of typefaces article. The difference here is the images of the types. It could be a useful tool, but it is not comprehensive or encyclopedic. —Zujine|talk 05:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The List of typefaces is hardly as useful as these lists, because it does not have the images of the typefaces. I confess that I was one of the editors adding to some of these pages back in 2009, because I thought they were interesting and useful then, and I still do. Yes, I know that useful is not a criteria for retention, but it should not be held against an article, either.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all the other "Samples" articles linked from it. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. JIP | Talk 05:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge and move/recreate on Commons, where pages showing sets of images from Commons are perfectly allowed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partly persuaded by arguments below that merging is reasonable. A pure collection of images isn't, but lists can be illustrated (and on graphics topics, it's right they should). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge all to List of typefaces - If that list is ever to become a FL, it needs detailed content. The content in these nominated pages is an ideal start. Designer name, samples for comparison (like List of amphibians of Michigan) which are important given that this is a visual topic, etc. —Quiddity (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, wouldn't they loose all the descriptive pictures? Dream Focus 08:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rename these to "List of FOO typefaces", expand them to make them comprehensive, and turn list of typefaces, which just contains bare wikilinks, into a list of lists? I also think that the added content, including illustrations, is the way to properly annotate such lists, and doing so does not make them mere "image galleries" within the meaning of WP:NOT. We want lists to be illustrated if feasible. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and rename. They serve a valid encyclopedic purpose like any other WP:SAL. All fonts in these lists are blue linked, thus notable. Clearly such lists exist elsewhere, so WP:LISTN is satisfied as well. I note that the main list lacks details such as [sub-]classification and designer, which these lists do provide. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Keep Useful and encyclopedic. A picture is worth a thousand words. Remember, Wikipedia exist to educate people, not just include famous people that get ample coverage everywhere. There are surely reference books out there, before computers even, that list all of these, but I don't really think this is the sort of thing that needs coverage to prove its encyclopedic. Dream Focus 23:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also rename from "samples" to "list" because obviously these are lists, and should have that at the start of their names. Dream Focus 08:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize: On Tijfo's point, just because the fonts are notable doesn't mean we need to organize them in this way. And remember, nobody's saying articles on individual fonts should be deleted, just that organizing them in six different lists on six different pages is the way to go p b p 04:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of typefaces. Per everybody above, the images are no doubt useful to some Wikipedia readers, but WP:NOT (though not entirely on point in this case) is against pages that are primarily a collection of images. There are, though, well established criteria for building and maintaining list articles. Whether the six "sample" pages and the list should be combined into one page or several is another question worth discussing, but it is beyond the scope of AfD. Cnilep (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are misreading WP:NOTGALLERY. "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." There is text with these images, and it's encyclopedic too. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that is what I had in mind when I said the policy is "not entirely on point in this case". Cnilep (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge: Though Wikipedia is not an image gallery, one might argue that these articles may be encyclopedic, since it would help those who are more visual learners. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep without any merging. These lists are useful to webmasters and desktop publishers, and have been improved over the years by typology project participants. They have links to particular font pages. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why you think this page is useful in a way that a list or lists would not be? Or is that not the basis for your "without any merging" suggestion? Cnilep (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are list articles, they just didn't have the word list in their name yet. They already said why it would be useful. Dream Focus 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's WP:USEFUL" is not an argument for keeping, still less for not merging. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, including images, into List of typefaces. Nothing says we can't have an illustrated list. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would all of this fit in just one article though? Dream Focus 01:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: This is a list, and thus should be titled List of sans serif typefaces. As a list, it clearly meets WP:LISTN. These typefaces have been treated as a group in multiple books, like this one and this one. The inclusion criteria are sufficiently clear and narrow from the title. Could be merged into List of typefaces if that seems more prudent, but given the potential size of this list it may be better to put a sampling of typefaces in the List of typefaces article and have separate ones for the various kinds of typefaces that are more comprehensive. --Batard0 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid list. It certainly overlaps with List of typefaces but the extra detail provided makes it worthwhile. If it was just a gallery, I would say delete, but it's also useful for navigation and summarizes factual encyclopedic information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment–In addition to the nominator's rationale, there were three arguments in favor of deletion made on 11 October. Since then there have been a variety of rationales for keeping the article, plus arguments surrounding merger, re-organization, or other clean-up. In my opinion, keeping this discussion open for another week is unlikely to produce much change in the balance of arguments for or against deletion. Cnilep (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No prose, no sources. Both of these can and should be added to the list. Under WP:LISTPURP, the lists do seem to be a valuable information source. If these type of lists are limited to covering only those items listed in Category:Typefaces by style, I don't think there would be too much resistance. However, I think the entrenched WP:OWN removal of no references templates as purportedly justified by Wikipedia_talk:Typeface_list_collaboration#Samples_of_script_typefaces indicates it's time to delete and restart with new editors who are willing to develop these lists per Wikipedia:Core content policies. When you post something like:

*******************************************************************************
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████PLEASE READ THE MESSAGE AT THE TALKPAGE OF THIS ARTICLE BEFORE EDITING███████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
*******************************************************************************

in the edit box[1] and remove policy based templates without complying with them and justify your actions based on a two+ year old very limited discussion with a Typeface list task force, that's WP:OWN. Merge all would have the same effect as delete all. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2012 (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.