Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scriptorium Fonts (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 19:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptorium Fonts

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

This article was listed for AfD back in 2007, and as soon as AfD was closed by nominator, this article hasn't been touched. I see no notability, almost no real external references to the company and a small business of 6 employees, barring exceptional circumstances, doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an organization it's been going for just over 20 years. Longevity of an organization is something to consider generally. 20 years is probably not enough for per se notability especially for a for-profit company. --Lquilter (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The notability here is not the longevity or the number of employees (a ridiculous criteria for qualification), but the widespread dispersal of the company's product in the media. This company makes fonts which are widely used in popular movies, on book covers and in video games. Some of these fonts are literally everywhere. The ubiquity of a product is clearly relevant for inclusion. Plus this page has already been reviewed and passed over for deletion once and it is more substantial now than it was then, and the person proposing deletion seems to be engaged in a vandalistic deletion campaign. Thalkyudes (talk) 17:18, 17 June 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.