Talk:DaFont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statement of Notability

I created this article early today, and it was tagged for deletion by Kww just recently for insufficient evidence of notability. Below is my defense of this article's notability.

DaFont is one of those subjects which, because of its non-academic and unexciting nature, it is somewhat difficult to find reliable sources for. It's been around for a long time. It started as a relative low-traffic site, so as far as I've been able to tell, the startup didn't attract any notable attention. The traffic increase was spread out over a period of at least 5-6 years (according to the Alexa record), so the expansion wasn't rapid enough to attract much notable commentary either.

Despite the lack of high-profile attention, there is very good and readily accessible evidence to clearly establish DaFont's notability. Kww's deletion comment was "Alexa ranking is a pretty weak statement of notability, akin to clutching at straws." I fully agree that Alexa rankings are far from perfect, due to the somewhat small sample size and the non-random sample. That said, a ranking that fluctuates around 1,000 speaks for itself. That is (somewhat) comparable with NewGrounds, RuneScape, and IBM, to name a few. (Those sites are hovering just under 500; I can't easily view sites around 1,000 without purchasing the data.) DaFont has no affiliation with Alexa or Amazon, and does not require or encourage users to install the toolbar which provides Alexa's data, or mention Alexa anywhere on the site. We should always take Alexa rankings with a grain of salt, but I think we have a reasonably solid confidence interval in this case to warrant DaFont's notability.

For those still unconvinced, consider the Google test. I'm well aware that counting results is generally frowned upon as a poor measurement of notability, but for a site which returns over one million results I think we can make an exception. No one has written a book about DaFont, but there are many, many related links and discussions that can be found throughout the web.

I will continue my search for reliable sources (help would be appreciated), but in the mean time I hope this will suffice. Please remember WP:IGNORE and WP:SENSE.

--xDanielx^Talk 08:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are a million Google hits, at least one has to be a reliable source that mentions DaFont. I'm not asking that you demonstrate that DaFont is wonderful, just that someone, somewhere has written about it. I won't be a jerk about it, I just want to see a bit more than an Alexa rating.Kww 11:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you consider reliable. The best I found was this article, which is evidently written by a credible author and gives significant attention to DaFont. This page is fairly decent, as the source is fairly reliable and it clearly warrants DaFont's large audience. There is a short review here - it is officially a blog, but certainly more reliable than most blogs. There is a very good in-depth review here, but although the author seems to have a very notable presence on dooyoo (75 articles, etc.), her profile doesn't seem to establish credibility outside of the dooyoo network. Another okay review is here, though the writer is also of questionable credibility. I doubt there's much else worth looking at.

Keep in mind that multiple sources are better than one, and by the same logic a million sources is better than a handful. Also, keep in mind that WP:RS is not used only for establishing notability, but also for verifying contentious claims. Sources for the latter are generally held to a considerably higher standard than the former. This article doesn't involve any of the latter, so the sources shouldn't be held to a very high standard.

The bottom line is that WP:N and WP:RS are focused on academic material, which this article essentially is not. For instance, WP:RS says "the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study." There aren't really any "experts" when it comes to assessing font sites. WP:N makes some egregious generalizations, and given that there are almost two million articles on Wikipedia, that is understandable. There's been discussion about changing notability guidelines somewhat, for instance here.

I think the sources listed above do a borderline job of substantiating notability. Frankly though, I think the Alexa rating and the Google results are more than enough to let the article pass as an exception to the traditional notability guidelines.

--xDanielx^Talk 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Kww's current feelings are, but I removed the tag as per WP:DP#Processes since I do (strongly) object to the deletion, and deletion of articles via the tag is reserved for uncontentious cases. If anyone favors the deletion, please take it to WP:AFD (and please drop me a message if you do, so I know to get involved). --xDanielx^Talk 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've brought it above the deletion threshold. Thanks. Kww 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)