Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exablock

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exablock

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

It's a typeface. There is no evidence of it being notable, either in the article, or in a Google search, other than it happens to be used in part of the Disney XD logo (which is an unreferenced claim, by the way). The article is unreferenced, and Google turns up a whole bunch of blogs and design sites; nothing reliable. The article is also an orphan (or needs more linking). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Even if a source was found for it being part of the Disney XD logo, that alone wouldn't make it notable. A Google search turned up no evidence of notability, but it did turn up this, which refers to Exablock as "7,623rd most popular font family of 24,025 families." The 7,623rd most popular font? I don't think we need quite that many articles on fonts. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2013 (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.