Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8514oem

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 all. Sr 13 01:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- Comment - Comic Sans does have an article, so I've just created a redirect for MS Comic Sans as it does seem a reasonable guess for the name. FredOrAlive 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Delete, none of these seem notable at all, there are thousands of fonts, modern OSs come with a fair few (look at List of fonts in Mac OS X), and frankly if all you can say is that they're included with Windows XP and perhaps what language system they're for, that doesn't exactly assert any kind of notability. FredOrAlive 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - unless there is something to distinguish the font from others such as a design award, then they are just fonts with no hope of the article expanding much beyond the substub which it is today. -- Whpq 16:31, 26 July 2007 (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.