Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Broadcasting Company logos (3rd 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

American Broadcasting Company logos
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

First AFD was kept due to WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing else. Second nomination had the article's creator clamoring that sources were available, but outright failing to prove it. Nowhere has it been proven that multiple independent sources have given the logo any attention. The three sources in the article dedicate no more than one or two sentences each, failing the significant part of the whole reliable sources thing. I have looked and cannot find any sources which significantly and independently discuss the logo's history in depth. The fact that Paul Rand designed the circle logo can be moved to ABC's article, but the rest is unsourced, indiscriminate fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous AFDs also had some of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. "Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos?" is not a reason, nor is "Finding refs and citations for these slogans is something that can be fixed." If you know where sources are, PROVE IT, don't just say they exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually I'm against these sorts of articles, but as it stands now there are refs to the NY Times? Are those insufficient? Tarc (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They're trivial as I said, giving only one sentence of information on the logo. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but please review this and let me know if you really think an entire NYT article about the logo and its history is trivial. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The acid test for article splits like this is whether there is critical commentary on the thin-sliced aspect which has been spun out here. What I see here is a changelog (and thinly veiled copyrighted image gallery) with no attempt at showing artistic/marketing considerations behind changes and no critical assessment. "So what?" is a good question to ask in cases like this and I don't think the article answers that. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is just "ABC had a bunch of other logos before Paul Rand's design stuck forever, and some gloss was added in 2007", but in overly detailed terms where other things like image campaigns and sounders were noted in detail only obsessives care about (which I admit I added alot to, but expected to be finessed over the years, which has not happened at all). Certainly only the most important information about the design belongs in the main article. With the launch of Logopedia getting in all the detail anyone would ever want to know about a ball with three letters in it, this article just isn't as needed as it would've been years ago (though there are some big issues over there like fair use and sourcing that have to be dealt with like they have been here, something I'm not about to deal with myself).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has references, and there are entire books on the logo's designer Paul Rand: Stephen Heller, Paul Rand, Phaidon, 2000; Derek Birdsall, et al, Paul Rand: Modernist Designer, Center for Art and Visual Culture, UMBC, 2003; Michael Kroeger, Paul Rand: Conversations With Students, Princeton Architectural Press 2008. Clearly sources are available, but they're printed not online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Another ludicrous TPH nomination like the NBC one. Sources are easy to find such as Television and New Media; Graphic Design, Referenced; Graphic Design: A New History.  Warden (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Clearly ABC is a notable organization, this is simply an organizational issue, not an AfD issue.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:HEREARESOMEOTHERINITIALS.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources illustrated by Colonel Warden, above. Even if there is no desire to keep this encyclopedic material as a standalone article, it could easily be merged in at least two places, the company or an article on TV network logos, so per WP:ATD there is no policy-based reason to delete the material. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge I'm sure there's somewhere we can stick this information, whether it be here or on ABC's page. Canuck 89 (talk to me) 07:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources covering this just fine, as others have pointed out and linked to.  D r e a m Focus  11:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe sufficient sources on this topic exist, from the NY Times piece cited in the articleto the sources identified by Warden to others like this.  Gongshow  Talk 20:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Colonel Warden et al, above. There's enough sourcing here to justify an article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe that the sources are sufficient enough to support an article on this and the other logos. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2012 (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.