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. Sr13 03:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code2000[edit]

Code2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

While I admit that it is a great font, it fails the notability guidelines in that there simply does not appear to be any secondary sources for us to get information from in order to write an article about it. Websites other than the creator's basically just give what scripts it supports (e.g. [1][2] Ptcamn 01:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not one of the more notable fonts. Corpx 01:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think that the effort was there. However, it does need some level of importance which seems to be lacking. --Stormbay 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--ZayZayEM 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I see no evidence of multiple, independent published sources. —Psychonaut 14:08, 22 June 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.