Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregularis
- 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Irregularis (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)
No indication of notability. The lone third-party source doesn't say what it's cited for and does not cover the typeface in any detail. Huon (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- I personally don't see lack of sources a threat to adequate accurate verifiable coverage here. This is a font and there is not much to add to the article, in theory, were the sources to exist. Gryllida (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This issue is not "accurate verifiable coverage", it's notability, and neither the article nor a google search reveal any sources that indicate the notability of this font. According to this message board post by the font creator, this was an amateur's first attempt at creating a font over a couple of days, and is a font that the other users of that forum called "about average for a free font from a first time designer". Barring extraordinary circumstances, it's hard to see how such a font could be notable. I'll also note that the article was created by Baville, who used to have the username Arman88, which sounds similar to the name of the font's creator Arman Ay. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This issue is not "accurate verifiable coverage", it's notability, and neither the article nor a google search reveal any sources that indicate the notability of this font. According to this message board post by the font creator, this was an amateur's first attempt at creating a font over a couple of days, and is a font that the other users of that forum called "about average for a free font from a first time designer". Barring extraordinary circumstances, it's hard to see how such a font could be notable. I'll also note that the article was created by Baville, who used to have the username Arman88, which sounds similar to the name of the font's creator Arman Ay. --Ahecht (TALK
- Delete as lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Per nom, the 1 independent mention is very brief and does not constitute significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
