Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandria (typeface)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria (typeface)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability not shown. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain why this does not meet notability? Has same refs as Athens and others in Category:Slab serif typefaces? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidstewartharvey:, we must consider this deletion in isolation and review it per guidelines. There are a lot of articles out there that should be deleted. We couldn't possibly delete them all at once. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok:My question is simple - the nominator has not stated why notability has not been met against Wikipedia rules. In addition, if this is not notable should they not put in a group deletion of those who references are the same? I am not voting just asking why? I am not expert on Fonts but I have to say how do you actually prove a font is notable?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidstewartharvey: you should it with the WP:GNG. I don't know why the nominator only nominated this one. Probably because it is easier than to make a long list, and then you can't use all those javascript gadgets that do half the work for you. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a nice font and all, but it doesn't meet GNG. I don't think it makes sense to have articles for fonts that aren't widely used or talked about a lot. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 3 July 2020 (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.