Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Is


 * 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. Not a useful redirect Courcelles (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Action Is

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable typeface. ImperialMajority (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not seeing sufficient sourcing to support notability. The two sources in the article are all I was able to turn up in my own search. There’s some information establishing its history, but some of the claims in the article about which films used it I could not reliably source. More importantly, the article fails GNG as only see two articles, one not in-depth on the font but is a bio of the creator from a non RS, one that’s just a cursory overview of the font with a few of the uses noted, with no continuing coverage. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage for this font found. All I get are hits on the phrase or combination of the words. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: has been re-directed to List of display typefaces by its original creator. XAM2175  (T) 18:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Because it exists does not make it notable. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 00:19, 28 March 2023 (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.