Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proggy programming fonts

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 monospaced typefaces. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proggy programming fonts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The article's current sources do not contain significant coverage. (The Coding Horror piece only contains a few sentences, not quite significant coverage.) In a WP:BEFORE search, I could not find any more coverage other than self-published blogs, which are not reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (currently weak sourcing) I found a book source but couldn't verify. There's a couple of what I consider WP:RS and another. Per WP:BLOGS "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert" which Jeff Atwood source is 100%, but yes it is not SIG despite Jeff using the font, as per other programmer's blogs [1]. My understanding is that although the sourcing is currently weak, we are more accommodating of open-source compared to WP:NPRODUCT. Widefox; talk 10:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of monospaced typefaces after adding an entry for the fonts there. Available sourcing is too weak to justify keeping this as a standalone article. Sources are universally user-generated or self-published and there are few details available. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Atwood is barely a passing mention in a list of fonts. Yeah he's an expert but nothing much about this. Andre🚐 08:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or *Merge and redirect to List of monospaced typefaces. I can only find blog in DuckDuckGo. 15:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete. A few references, but they're not significant coverage ... just boilerplate lists of fonts. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Anon... List of monospaced typefaces ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of monospaced typefaces per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2025 (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.