Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airline liveries and logos


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Airline liveries and logos

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an unencyclopedic collection of information. The only point to it at all is the classification, and that appears to be original research. —teb728 t c 08:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content does leave a bit to be desired, but the subject appears notable enough. A whole book has apparently been written on the subject of airline liveries. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article discusses a feature common to all airlines. It is not just a collection: comparing the symbols used as logos is of itself encyclopedic.  Kransky (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This topic is demonstrably encyclopaedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A prime example of a list done right, which is all too rare on Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Refactor or delete. Good effort but an obvious violation of Non-free content criteria. Perhaps a single logo per "Birds" or "National flags" will be acceptable but half a hunded FUs per page is over the top. NVO (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete just a collection of non-free logos that really should be removed. Without the non-free logos the content does not make sense. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with MilborneOne and NVO - the content doesn't seem to be covered under fair use. --Matt (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepThough the article should focus more on the history and the most notable or creative examples, like Northwest's old logo -which was the initials NW on a circle,and could also be described as a compass indicating to the northwest- rather than being an illustrated list only useful for the seeing community. Entire books have been written on the subject.Synchronism (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This content belongs in wikipedia and is in pretty good shape on this page.  --Lockley (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, severe violation of Fair Use, not only in that the logos should only be used in articles about the companies, not a list like this, but the fair use rationales must specifically list this article when a fair use claim is asserted.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per violations of fair-use rationales of WP:LOGO. I mentioned to the article editor here on my talkpage that airline branding is a notable subject (branding is more than a logo and a slap of paint on an aircraft), however, not like this. A referenced article, and I can't stress enough the referenced part, on airline branding is a good idea, but not in this form. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per fair use policy for logos. This is a discriminate and unencyclopedic list of information for logos, which is a list of images clearly not being used to illustrate their respective subjects/airlines/etc --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense - the logos are clearly being used to illustrate the sections about the respective airlines. The compendious nature of the article is no bar to such fair use.  In any case, the image issue is irrelevant since we are not at IFD and the article is wider in scope than any particular airline or image. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just cited this paper which further demonstrates that this is a topic of great scholarly interest. No satisfactory argument has been presented above to counter the clear evidence that this is a highly notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As the article stands now it's just a list of logos with no notability. The paper sourced above sounds interesting, but this is certainly not written like a scholarly article let alone an encyclopedic one. There's really no information in the article but it's just a way of sorting airline logos that obviously is original research. If there's no way for it to be improved I think it should be deleted. NcSchu ( Talk ) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not just a list of logos. For example, the first section on birds, provides details and links to the type of bird. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Colonel, "notability" issue in this AFD is clearly secondary to copyright policy (Quote: In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.). Survival of the article depends on trimming down the graphics, or persuading the community to take an exception (good luck, but seems a WP:SNOW to me). P.S. Hint: isn't it odd that the logo is FU, but a photograph of an airplane in full livery is not? NVO (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point is unclear but it is, in any case, irrelevant. The topic is notable and the article's use of images is a matter of content editing, not deletion per the emphatic statement of WP:AFD: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Please note that the nomination did not say one word about images.  Its complaint was that the article was unencyclopedic.  This claim has been been shown to be false and so the nomination should be rejected. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is pretty clear. Use photos from commons of aircraft with logos showing, instead of logos on their own which is a copyright infringement. As the article stands now it is a massive copyright infringement, and could have been speedied on that basis. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Because it looks to me like just a list of airline logos accompanied by a fragment of a sentence stating what, in your opinion, the logo means. NcSchu ( Talk ) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I should note that concerns about copyright violations are indeed relevant. Even if the page is kept, all logos will have to be removed as they are non-free. NcSchu ( Talk ) 16:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this discussion is only about whether the article should be deleted or not. All this talk about images belongs elsewhere, such as the talk page for the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (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.