Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astur (typeface)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astur (typeface)[edit]

[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)

No sources since 2009 and I can't really find anything about it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a font and here is the info about it [[1]] which is a print industry resource but not much else.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is enough to justify notability. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not used much nowadays, but it was a common display font in the 1950s and 1960s. A quick Google Books search shows it listed in Practical Handbook on Display Typefaces for Publication Layout (1959), Types of Typefaces and how to Recognize Them (1967), TGC Typeface Directory (1968), Type and Typefaces (1978), Art Deco Display Alphabets: 100 Complete Fonts (1982), etc. I'm sure I have more books here somewhere that list it.—Chowbok ☠ 02:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the reason you're not finding many modern references to it might be that it's more commonly known as "Woodplank" nowadays (as noted in the article). A search for "Woodplank font" gets a lot of hits.—Chowbok ☠ 02:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of display typefaces. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOREASON.—Chowbok ☠ 03:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the redirect to List of display typefaces proposed by Metropolitan90 if a column is added to the table of fonts in that article for additional information, with the useful information from this article merged to that column. BD2412 T 03:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator's rationale is that they can't find sources; Chowbok has provided them. Chowbok appears to be the most-informed person in this discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2020 (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.