Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koala (font)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Koala (font) (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 am unable to find any references that would help this article obtain WP:GNG status. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable font, yes it's free, but that's it. The article's author contribution, this article only. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Substantial notability should not be an issue in this case, because there is no set declarative for typeset popularity. Besides, this font has been downloaded 4,400+ times over the past year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.144.86 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fonts are not inherently notable; there are simply too many of them. Clearly some are notable because they are, say, bundled with Windows or widely used in publishing. I do not think that WP:GNG is entirely helpful for things like fonts but I would want evidence of widespread adoption and/or recommendations for its use in particular applications and so forth to establish notability. Otherwise, it is just another uncial face. --AJHingston (talk) 21:14, 7 September 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.