Talk:Scriptorium Fonts

Notability

The notability refers to the artists on whose work the fonts are based. they all have WikiPedia entries, so you can check their notability.

I see the deletion notice is back. This listing is very similar to listings of other type foundries and far more detailed and supported than most of them and they aren't being considered for deletion. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalkyudes (talk • contribs) 16:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Please note the entries for foundries like Fonthaus and FontBureau which are far less detailed and supported than this one is. They don't even include sources beyond the company websites. So why not delete them first?

We judge each article on its own merit, not compared to one another. Please see

• • That being the case I can't imagine why you'd want to delete this article, which is reasonably well documented and informative. Tell me what's missing and it should be easy to add it. - Al --Thalkyudes 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F for more info. --NeilN 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I could not find the articles on Fonthaus and FontBureau that you mention. --NeilN 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry, Fonthaus is one of the omitted foundries I was going to add. I meant Font Bureau and Fontasaurus, but easily half of the listings which have supporting pages which are on the Type Foundries category page have pages which are less well documented and less complete than this one. We're talking 3 line listings with the only support being the company's website for companies that have 30 fonts in release, compared to this listing for one of the largest and well known independent foundries with hundreds of fonts in release? I know we're not making comparisons here, but some consistency would be nice. - Al --Thalkyudes 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, Neil. My objective here was NOT to get Font Bureau and Fontosaurus' listings deleted. Asking about that was meant to be rhetorical. Fontosaurus is not terribly notable, but Font Bureau is a fairly major foundry and may well deserve a listing, just a better one than they had. Wasn't it a 'stub' meaning that it needed to be expanded and updated? I would have gladly gone in and done that work, had you not deleted it. - Al --Thalkyudes 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• First, I did not touch Fontosaurus. Second, you said, "Please note the entries for foundries like Fonthaus and FontBureau which are far less detailed and supported than this one is. They don't even include sources beyond the company websites. So why not delete them first?". Third, if you are going to significantly improve an article might I suggest adding an {{underconstruction}} tag at the top? Upon seeing this, most editors including myself will wait a few days to see if an article meets the notability criteria before nominating it for deletion. Fourth, I'm not an admin - I can't delete articles. I can nominate them for deletion but an admin has to agree with the reason I provide. --NeilN 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All good points, Neil. My intent on the other two foundries was to use them as examples, not as targets, that's all. Do note that you flagged the article for deletion within 3 minutes of my initial posting of the original version. I hardly had time to add an underconstruction tag, though I agree it's a good suggestion. Can you spare an opinion? Do you think that with the current external support links the article is viable? If not, what can I do to improve it? -Al --Thalkyudes 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was previously considered for deletion 6 years ago, has since become more substantial and has more notable information in it. It should never have been nominated for deletion again. The action seems almost mailicious. Thalkyudes (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)