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 keep. ansh666 07:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburgevons[edit]

Hamburgevons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a collection of neologisms. Unnotable word. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, when I googled this I get an empty news page and a general search return of non RS. That is BEFORE. I am now convinced of notability. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, typography doesn't really end up in the news very often, does it? You would have seen a different picture if you'd tried a google books search, or if you'd known of the spelling variants (now pointed out by the IP who expanded the article). – Uanfala 14:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This could be added either to Typeface#Texts used to demonstrate typefaces or to Filler text. – Uanfala 20:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The trouble is deeper here. The article is based on an unreliable source. In five minutes I discovered a whole new vocabulary that would have been used in this article. It's not a "bottom horizontal line," it's a "arm." It's not a "right-hand curve," it's an "ear." We need to strive for quality. Rhadow (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is what the word means. The article doesn't tell me. I suppose some wikilawyer might try to say that without a definition it can't be considered a dictionary entry :) L3X1 (distænt write) 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, in its twelve letters, it has an example of every straight line and curve in a standard font. It's not a word. It's a sample graphic. Liken it to the typing sample. "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog," which uses every letter of the alphabet. Rhadow (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEDAY Billhpike (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reconsider the WP:ONEDAY argument, I have added a few book sources, one is from 1972. Sam Sailor 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If someone (anyone) had bothered to do a WP:BEFORE, they would have found many reliable sources in books on typography that describe its use as a test word for font design and layout. Diverse published sources in reliable publications = notability. Seriously, with so many excellent published references out there why are you all advocating deletion?198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello 198.58.171.47 -- My point exactly. If the article creator had looked, the text would have been ... expository. Since you found so many excellent published references on Hamburgevons, why do't you put them in? Rhadow (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I did. Eight sources and a biblio entry added, as well as an image from Commons. You should try researching the subject and adding sources sometime, as it is more constructive than not doing any research and blindly voting.198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 198.58.171.47's work and the presence of enough sources. Shouldn't the title be changed to Hamburgefonts though? – Uanfala 11:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 198.58.171.47. Seems like a topic which meets WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an obscure term of art is no reason to delete, when there is (and there is) adequate sourcing for it from that field. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In another realm, Morphenniel PRODded a "Very obscure term that you would only find in a economics book, not an encyclopedia". Is HAMBURGEVONS very obscure or just obscure? Rhadow (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that article was completely unreferenced. Perhaps you need to try editing articles and get some experience before delving into deleting them. Or are you just on Wikipedia to cause disruption and trying to delete the hundreds of hours of effort of true editors. Morphenniel (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article has been substantially improved and certainly meet WP:GNG as not even ordinary font, but one for special purpose. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a nonce word for printing tests with no inherent meaning. At best it will be a WP:DICTDEF. The only reference I could verify was [1], which aids not at all in determining what the title would/should be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonce-words aren't exempt from the notability guidelines, we've got articles on two dozen or so of them: Category:Nonce words, Category:Filler text. – Uanfala (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. more than a dicdef, and adequately referenced. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough and plenty of good sourcing to be found. It is worth keeping for readers who are looking for clarification on this non-word that is outside the scope of a dictionary. NerudaPoet (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Referenced in the typographical literature at least as far back as 1972. Neither a neologism or a dic def. Sources have been added, meets GNG. Sam Sailor 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Note that Hamburgefonts is currently a redirect to Type design. That should be changed to point here. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2017 (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.