Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter (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 delete albeit weakly. Consensus is that there isn't reliable source based coverage to establish notability, and that a merger is not a valid ATD in this case due to the criteria of the List article. Star Mississippi 02:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inter (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)

De-PROD'd by creator. Links added do not constitute reliable significant coverage in my opinion, and as stated in the PROD rationale I was not able to locate any suitable coverage when I looked.

The Figma link is a blog for the company Figma, and it's clearly not independent, as it opens with "Figma designer Rasmus Andersson learned that first hand while creating Inter" (bold added). The second link is a lovely post on some guy's blog, which is very nice, but does not constitute reliable coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Fonts don't get mainstream attention, but this one seems to be known within the online font world: Typewolf, Dafontonline, a designer's blog. It gets a mention as one of the 36 fonts "to watch" for 2022 [1]. It's used in a web design book (although I can't tell to what detail), it's known as a "Google font" (whatever that is). However the Google site claims to cover 1,359 free fonts of which this is one. The Figma link is a company blog but the post describes how the font is used by github and mozilla, so it doesn't seem product-specific. Still, I understand that blog posts are often not considered RS. Lamona (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of these "sources" constitutes significant reliable coverage that supports a claim of notability. Typewolf is a non-professional one-man blog that solicits submissions from its audience including of their own work, DaFontOnline is not coverage but a place to download the font, and the Brian Gardner blog is the "lovely post on some guy's blog" I already mentioned in my nomination. Creative Boom looks reasonably reliable, but a scant paragraph in a listicle isn't exactly significant coverage. The web design book isn't talking about the font itself, just using it as an example of a free variable font; you could sub in any equivalent font and the content would not change. Being a "Google font" means literally nothing in terms of notability if there's no independent coverage of the fact that the font is one of almost 1400 free "Google fonts". Finally, the Figma post, as I already clearly pointed out, is not just a blog (unreliable unless proven otherwise), but much more importantly it is not independent of the subject, as the creator of this font is a designer with Figma. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of typefaces which could itself do with some work. Gusfriend (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? So far, there is no sourcing to indicate that this typeface is any different from any of the literal millions of typefaces available for download on the internet. We are not a comprehensive guide to all of them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this typeface lacks notability for a page by itself. Then I started thinking in terms of populating the list of typefaces page so that it has more than just the name of the typefaces on it and thinking that perhaps this typeface may be an entry point into that project. Gusfriend (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding non-notable typefaces to that list would be a total failure of WP:LISTCRIT and an invitation for anyone to spam it with the name of every conceivable downloadable typeface. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of thousands of non-notable typefaces. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:28, 5 March 2022 (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.