Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherbrooke (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   redirect to List of typefaces. Rational for a redirect is compelling but also consensus that the material here is unsourced so deleting prior to redirect.... Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sherbrooke (typeface)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a self-promo article of a non-notable font. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 11 September, 2014; 04:07 04:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources are download sites and a blog, not RS. A search turned up no RS coverage of this font.Dialectric (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see lack of many independent sources (with a couple secondary sources included) a threat to this specific article's integrity, verifiability, or accuracy. As the article subject is also not for sale either, I'm inclined to suggest that we keep it. --Gryllida (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is not one of accuracy, but notability. Per WP:GNG, to be included, subjects need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. And per WP:RS and the Reliable sources/Noticeboard download sites are not independent and do not contribute to establishing notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of typefaces, cannot find significant coverage sufficient for individual notability. J04n(talk page) 00:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't even think that it deserves a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of typefaces. The sources in the article are insufficient to meet WP:GNG so it doesn't justify its own page. However, per WP:BEFORE, we should look for alternatives to deletion and I see no policy reason to delete when a redirect would be just fine. Subjects redirected do not require notability or even merit; what is required is that the redirect should not be harmful and should take the reader somewhere relevant. In this case this would be a valid redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:46, 5 October 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.