Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClearlyU

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClearlyU

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

I've found no evidence of the notability of this font. Declined PROD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of typefaces#Unicode fonts, which mentions it. Regardless of whether sources exist (they may, but if so, they're hard to find), the article as it currently exists has no sources and no information beyond a basic definition you would find in a software directory. As Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a place to advertise fonts, a redirect seems to make the most sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up incidental mentions on various font sites but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2015 (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.