Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engschrift

Engschrift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Initially PRODed by me, for the following reason:

In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.

Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk 22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Transportation, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is covered in DIN 1451 in more detail than is here. Nothing in that article gives me the impression that a separate article on DIN 1451 Engschrift would be needed. I did search and Engschrift is always defined together with DIN 1451. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to DIN 1451, by condensing the Austria section into a single sentence and placing it under DIN_1451#Usage_examples (this is sourced - the article's only source refers to this). There is certainly no justification for a standalone article, as the target article provides better coverage for every other aspect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if I agree with a merge, since Engschrift (German for "narrow font/script") isn't strictly unique to DIN 1451. EthanL13 | talk 14:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is in this case, as the article makes clear. The term should lead the reader somewhere. Do you have more general redirect targets in mind? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is much to go by – it can't even stick to its own subject in the lead. If it were possible, a disambiguation page (with DIN 1451 as its primary article) would be ideal, with links to Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and FE-Schrift. Just an idea, not sure if it's possible. EthanL13 | talk 09:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a disambiguation would be the way to go, given the several different types where the term is accepted as a variant, and the fact that it also represents the original German term for shorthand [1]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]