- 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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- MacType (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no coverage of this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi, I hope the following articles can help:
- Comment: Are these reliable sources? They're all in Japanese, so I can only use Google translate, but they seem to be descriptive reviews and don't strongly assert its notability. Mention of the software in an article that contains more than descriptive/promotional copy would be more substantial, as would mention in a magazine article falling under editorial review. --R.S. Peale (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for your reply. I did some search and found these:
- http://geekchunk.com/operating-systems/use-gdipp-or-mactype-to-get-mac-or-linux-style-font-smoothing-in-windows/ This article mentions and compares GDI++ and MacType.
- http://tech.sina.com.cn/s/2011-03-24/18311694262.shtml (Chinese) This Q&A page mentions compatibility of Internet Explorer 9 and MacType.
- http://www.geekpark.net/read/view/157288 (Chinese) This review article of Kindle and iPad compares their font rendering technology to MacType. The article was reposted on the 163 website and cnBeta (the link no longer works though).
- Alexlur (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for your reply. I did some search and found these:
- Comment: Are these reliable sources? They're all in Japanese, so I can only use Google translate, but they seem to be descriptive reviews and don't strongly assert its notability. Mention of the software in an article that contains more than descriptive/promotional copy would be more substantial, as would mention in a magazine article falling under editorial review. --R.S. Peale (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:08, 16 July 2013 (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.