Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typophile

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. Majorly (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typophile

Typophile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deleted once as dicdef plus a weblink,. now created as even more blatantly a puff for the website. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, borderline G11, WP:WINAD. Possibly redirect to Typography or somewhere else useful. Sandstein 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Borderline G11 and probably close enough to a G4 too. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - spammy dictdef. MER-C 11:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pretty blatant ad, probably comes under "neologism" as well. Lankiveil 11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 12:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Typophiles. Of course, that article might not be notable enough to stay anyway, but that's a different AfD. Koweja 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. Not a neologism, a term of long standing. 186 Google Books results[1], even a couple dozen Google News Archive results.[2] --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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.