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. j⚛e decker^talk 01:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spumoni (typeface)[edit]

Spumoni (typeface) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article has been around for seven years with no references or indication of notability. Google search for spumoni typeface brings up a lot of places where it can be downloaded, and some Wikipedia mirrors, but no significant discussion of it. ... discospinster _talk 21:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable, no sources. Bali88 (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are there specific guidelines for notability of typefaces? --Theredproject (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't believe so. Just the general notability criteria. I looked at WP:WikiProject Typography and there aren't any notability suggestions. ... discospinster _talk 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see lots of small mentions like this. But the coverage is usually just a sentence stating to the effect that it is a fun or playful typeface. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 30 June 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.