Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphabet Synthesis Machine
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JIP (talk | contribs) at 16:03, 27 November 2005 (→[[Alphabet Synthesis Machine]]: closing AfD discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 16:03, 27 November 2005 by JIP (talk | contribs) (→[[Alphabet Synthesis Machine]]: closing AfD discussion)
- 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. (Thought I'd write "delete", didn't you?) — JIP | Talk 16:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. So I'm putting it up for the AfD test. Karol 11:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Legitimately notable. Covered by PBS and appears to have attracted legitimate attention among typography periodicals. Over 12,000 Google hits. The first hundred looked quite serious. Durova 11:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't know it, but it sure looks good. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 14:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A work in nascence. Could be interesting; come back when analysis is complete. Denni ☯ 03:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you checked this out? It doesn't aim to analyze anything. It's an interactive work of art that creates generates fictional alphabet scripts. Runs quite well, which is why PBS covers it. Durova 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only reason it was covered by PBS is that it was commissioned by PBS - it says so right at the top of the website, "An interactive online artwork created for Art21 and PBS". So I really don't think we can use the PBS references as evidence of media attention. I can't find any others, though - could you identify these typography periodicals you think have given it legitimate attention, please, Durova?
As for Google - most of the mentions on Google appear to be passing comments on blogs... — Haeleth Talk 21:59, 24 November 2005 (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.