Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyadish

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyadish

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

Non-notable font. References are to storefronts that sell the font, which doesn't indicate notability. Article was created by the font creator. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is written like an advertisement and there is no indication that the font is notable enough to be encyclopedic. Snood1205 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Inclusion on font download sites is not sufficient. A search turned up no RS coverage of this font.Dialectric (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is the author of the article trying to promote his or her own work? This is not a known font and is not notable. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see lack of many independent sources (with one 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) 06:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly is for sale (and both those pages are linked from the article). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of secondary coverage indicates notability concerns and a failure to meet WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:36, 19 September 2014 (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.