Talk:Brandon Grotesque
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brandon Grotesque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Speedy deletion[edit]
I was noticed by Dennis Brown on my talk page that this page had been marked for speedy deletion. I cannot see that there is a link saying "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" nor can I see a tag for speedy deletion. Anyway, the reason given was that this article was spam or had an commercial agenda. I am not affiliated with HVD Fonts nor do I currently own Brandon Grotesque but after reading about it I found the font charming and the history, description and thoughts behind it well made out. It is an up-and-comer among the recent typefaces surfacing today and I believe it deserves an own page. Note that there are several other commercial typefaces and fonts having their own Wikipedia-page without having any other significance than that they were included in Microsoft Windows. Bleakgadfly (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, if you check the article history you will see that I reviewed the CSD nomination and removed the template. In my estimation the article is a neutral description of a type face, much like many other type face articles and is not promotional. I encouraged anyone who still thinks it should be deleted to take the article to WP:AFD. I hope that clarifies what happened. - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)