Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8514oem: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:11, 23 July 2007

8514oem

I fail to see the notability of this generic typeface. -- Prince Kassad 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to the following articles:

...and these articles:

...and another one:

Yikes, delete them all. Totally non-notable fonts, not even worth merging. I can't believe someone went to all this trouble. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to List of MS Windows typefaces. The articles as they stand don't have enough info or refs for a proper stub, but they do have some encyclopedic value as a list. They were all designed by someone, and eventually licensed to MS, so there is some history that could be developed with further research as well. Dhaluza 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per £10 hammer Will ^(talk) 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. These fonts are distributed with Windows, so that has to confer some notability. The articles are stubs created just one month ago. They may expand to include useful information (e.g. the history of the fonts' development). We should revisit the situation in a few months' time. JulesH 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even see how this would be encyclopedic as a list. To address Jules' first point - dbnmpntw.dll, jgdw400.dll, and MSSTKPRP.DLL are also distributed with Windows - and let's not forget ALANA.DLL, cc3250mt.dll, and the ever-popular DartSock.dll. I would argue that while very vital to the functionality of our computers, none of them are encyclopedic. As to the second point, "may expand" is a bit unsettling - in a few months' time, it's still equally probable that they "may expand", and a few months' time later, still just as possible. Until these fonts are as well-established in popular culture as, say, Times New Roman, or even of the same kitschy niche as MS Comic Sans (edit: which is itself a red-link, thus only bolstering my confidence in this argument), then I see no need for their inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Action Jackson IV 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 * '''Delete''' per £10 hammer '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' for now.  These fonts are distributed with Windows, so that has to confer some notability.  The articles are stubs created just one month ago.  They may expand to include useful information (e.g. the history of the fonts' development).  We should revisit the situation in a few months' time. [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
-* '''Delete''' - I can't even see how this would be encyclopedic as a list. To address Jules' first point - dbnmpntw.dll, jgdw400.dll, and MSSTKPRP.DLL are also distributed with Windows - and let's not forget ALANA.DLL, cc3250mt.dll, and the ever-popular DartSock.dll. I would argue that while very vital to the functionality of our computers, [[WP:NOT#INFO|none of them are encyclopedic]]. As to the second point, "may expand" is a bit unsettling - in a few months' time, it's still equally probable that they "may expand", and a few months' time later, still just as possible. Until these fonts are as well-established in popular culture as, say, [[Times New Roman]], or even of the same [[kitsch|kitschy]] niche as [[MS Comic Sans]], then I see no need for their inclusion in an encyclopedia. --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
+* '''Delete''' - I can't even see how this would be encyclopedic as a list. To address Jules' first point - dbnmpntw.dll, jgdw400.dll, and MSSTKPRP.DLL are also distributed with Windows - and let's not forget ALANA.DLL, cc3250mt.dll, and the ever-popular DartSock.dll. I would argue that while very vital to the functionality of our computers, [[WP:NOT#INFO|none of them are encyclopedic]]. As to the second point, "may expand" is a bit unsettling - in a few months' time, it's still equally probable that they "may expand", and a few months' time later, still just as possible. Until these fonts are as well-established in popular culture as, say, [[Times New Roman]], or even of the same [[kitsch|kitschy]] niche as [[MS Comic Sans]] (edit: which is itself a red-link, thus only bolstering my confidence in this argument), then I see no need for their inclusion in an encyclopedia. --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)