Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC idents


 * 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 Keep. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

ABC idents
Comment. I think it is surprising that there are so many votes to keep this article even though it has no real text other than the heading paragraph. Georgia guy 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Comment: Given the example from National Broadcasting Company logos, articles like this have some chance for expansion into a good article. Then again, articles like ABC idents and BBC television idents don't. I thinking moving to "List of ABC idents" would be a good idea, because "list of" articles are just that: a list, not an article. Jesuschex 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing more than a gallery of logos with no encyclopedic information. Please Delete. Georgia guy 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is probably a logo gallery subpage for American Broadcasting Company. However, the images all seem to be fair use, but they all lack any fair use rationales and also  amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Therefore, the image fair use problem should be looked into farther, and then perhaps the article should be deleted should the images fail WP:FUC. AndyZ t 01:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep only if logo's meet fair use, then it would be encyclopedic  Funky Monkey    (talk)   02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up the article so it can meet proper standards. As per above, make sure the identifications are fair use. :: Colin Keigher 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Funky Monkey. SorryGuy 04:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clarify, if logo use is ok. Also, compare to or consider BBC television idents. --Ajdz 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. Is "ident" even the proper word to use? Fagstein 05:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopaedic. "Ident" is the usual term I've seen for these. Vashti 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per AndyZ and Ajdz. Tijuana Brass 07:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep encyclopedic -- Samir  [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]  (the scope)  08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, its just the logo and this is encyclopedic. --Ter e nce Ong 10:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hard to imagine this not being fair use; hard to imagine conveying this information any other way.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Currently this article fails to pass the fair use criteria policy. It needs more textual content regarding its history, like National Broadcasting Company logos. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but with regard to comments above, review the fair use. doktorb | words 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but article needs clean-up to be presentable. Wstaffor 22:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Really cool article. Needs some actual text, though. --Mboverload 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Either move to List of ABC idents, delete as unencyclopedic or expand. It is literally a list, no analysis, no text other than an explanatory sentence, etc.  If it's possible to actually write something in the article, keep. Jesuschex 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's possible to write some text there, but not if it gets deleted before someone has a chance. The article was barely a day old when it got nominated. Analysis will be a problem because that is bound to become the forbidden "original research". Lambiam Talk 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then, someone go ahead and do so. Georgia guy 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's original research, than we'll delete it then. I'm all for giving it a chance, but only if there's potential. Jesuschex 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep encyclopedic. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to commons It is nothing more than a gallery, commons is the place for galleries. Ans  e  ll  05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery, period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If improperly used images were removed this article would be two sentences, three external links, and four categories. Redirect to the ABC page until this article can be justified with actual content. Alternately, just delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean. &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:28 
 * Keep - a valuable addition to the sum of all human knowledge. KWH 17:08, 22 April 2006 (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.