Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of BBC television 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 was   keep. Also please remember that AfD is not for cleanup The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

History of BBC television idents

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has been going through the motions for a while now, with users removing all the images as violations of the fair use policy, and others reverting. It seems clear that the problem will not go away the way things are, but by deleting this article, non of the images relating to BBC One and BBC Two (the oldest BBC channels) will be lost and the information regarding them can be merged into their own articles. It will be necessary to create a separate article for CBBC idents in a similar vein to the individual articles for BBC One and Two's idents. This article is however, providing to be a stumbling block, and the way it is now, I can't see a widely agreed upon solution coming up for a long time. I'd like to also point out that I created this article as 'BBC television idents' several years ago, which I now consider to be a mistake, given how it has only really meant content that could be housed elsewhere has been spread out in this way.

It is also worth noting this article was nominated for deletion as part of a group, when ITV Idents and Presentation was nominated. This was on 17 December 2006 with the result "Delete, unless cleaned up". I'd say those initial reasons for the nomination still exist today. Cloudbound (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that the article is significantly different and significantly more selective that it was when nominated in 2006. .  Also the article has been essentially stable, with much the selection of images it currently has.  There has not been an ongoing tug-of-war of removals and reinstatements.  Those who have looked at the article, some of whom take a distinctively strong line on NFC, have by and large left it as they have found it.  Jheald (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nominator's proposal makes no sense. He thinks it's worthwhile having a separate article on each iteration of the BBC's main channels' branding. But far more valuable is to have an article showing how that has evolved over time, preserving and maintaining particular visual cues, to allow the reader to assess for themselves that development, and see such stages in context of the whole. This is an article which is informative, and well used, on a subject of considerable interest to people particularly in the UK, where the BBC and by extension its main branding has the status of a symbol of the nation. (Note also the article's assessment by the BBC project as "mid-importance", not just low-importance trivia). This is a valuable article which readers find useful and should be kept. Jheald (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather not have any of the separate ident articles either. Cloudbound (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So when you say "none of the images relating to BBC One and BBC Two (the oldest BBC channels) will be lost and the information regarding them can be merged into their own articles", you are talking about articles you would actually want to see deleted? That seems to me to be not playing entirely straight. Jheald (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about what's happening at present. By deleting this article alone, none of the images would be lost. A future review of the individual pages may mean that later on, some images are deleted. Cloudbound (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I return to my point that it makes much more sense to have an article that brings this development over time together, into one place where it is reviewed, as we have now and have had for the last five years, rather than throwing it to the winds. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's in a mess. Cloudbound (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it? It seems to me that it does substantially what it says on the tin: it gives the reader a sense of what the idents have been, and how and when and why they have evolved.  Which seems to me pretty much what one looks up such an article to find out.  Jheald (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been around for five years as you say, and yet the argument over the number of images continues. Cloudbound (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have said on the talk page, I think the way some of the additional BBC satellite and digital channels are dealt with could and should be streamlined, with fewer images. But it seems to me that the treatment of the most important part of the article, the BBC's core visual identities -- those for BBC 1 and BBC 2 -- is about right, given that this is the topic of the article, and a topic (in my view) that is indeed worth covering. WP:NFC requires us to use no more images than significantly add to reader understanding about the topic. In my view, that is exactly the balance the BBC 1 and BBC 2 images achieve. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the images for the other channels. Wouldn't the individual articles for BBC One and Two's idents be sufficient, with the navigation boxes at the bottom? Cloudbound (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The other articles you'd like to get rid of, you mean? :-) No, I don't think so.  I think there is much more value, for somebody looking, in having the information in one place, so that they can get a reasonably complete overview from one article, which they can print out, or store and read offline if they want to.  And that is also why such an article should be reasonably self-sufficient.  Jheald (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article we have now is almost two or three articles in one already. Perhaps the separate articles on BBC One idents can be merged into one, and the same for BBC Two, with this article deleted. Deleting this article should end the ongoing dispute over the amount of images, which can't be a bad thing. Cloudbound (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - If I read the nom right, the suggestion is to delete the article because consensus on what to do with it can't be found? It's true the article is poorly referenced, and has issues like the use of Galleries, but that can be fixed.  The topic is notable, and whether it should be split into separate articles (and I think it probably should) is a matter for consensus or WP:Mediation if none can be found. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  23:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep if the intention is to simply break this up into a number of sub articles, delete if not. As is, the article is lightly referenced, with 1/3rd of the references being primary references and a number of others going to fan/tribute sites. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't see a problem with the article how it is. This is no different to how an article would look if every section had been expanded and split off into a separate article - the original article is still valuable as a summary of all the different sections, just as the lead paragraph of an article is useful even though it repeats information in the body text. The lack of references isn't a huge issue - you can check the sub-articles for the references there. I'd also put the images back in the article - it's within our fair use policy, the chance of the copyright holder suing us is near zero, and it makes the article so much easier to follow. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't retain non-free content because we believe the chance of the Wikimedia Foundation being sued is low. We retain non-free content only when we absolutely must in order to achieve our mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that putting all the images through the year on one page greatly increases the usability of these pages (as opposed to clicking through every page individually), which furthers Wikimedia's mission that way. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is in my opinion appropriate that the system stands like this: Pages with the idents and presentation package looked at in detail, and a short summary in one page which can link between all of the others and provide a reference point for the big picture. Some clean up needs to be done with the images, but I couldn't say what. The only thing I do know is that removing this page would be a backwards step and would make the topic, which is extremely important to the context of the BBC, innacessable to the general public. Rafmarham (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with the above points, and I find it hard to believe that a 52,382 byte article is up for deletion in the first place, it's usually stub class articles. Too much work has gone into this article to just wipe it all out in one go. Digifiend (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to invite all of you who have voted keep to assist in the improvement of the article, so that the improper use of copyright material tag can be removed. Thanks. Cloudbound (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2011 (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.