Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looney Tunes 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 of the debate was no consensus. But lawdy, does this article ever need a cleanup. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Looney Tunes logos
Almost completely original research, not encyclopedic, and a copyvio as well from http://members.fortunecity.com/teamfx2000/Kids_Cartoons/looneytunes.htm.--FuriousFreddy 23:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete marketing trivia. The manner in which a company presented its trademarks in a particular year is not encyclopedic. If you want to know what year a cartoon was made, you should look up the cartoon. Gazpacho 00:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this has nothing to do with marketing. It is to show how the looney tunes logo, (something which is somewhat iconic) changed over the years which is perfectly acceptable in an encyclopedia. JBH 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A text dump from another website is hardly encyclopedic material. --FuriousFreddy 06:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * An article like this is pretty useless without the actual logos being shown. It’s like trying to describe a scene to a blind person. I would say delete unless we can get pictures of all the logos. &bull;DanMS 02:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * COmment. I found the page this was copyvio'd from: http://members.fortunecity.com/teamfx2000/Kids_Cartoons/looneytunes.htm. I've gone to this site several times before over the last two years (it once had pictures), and this article was begun four months ago. --FuriousFreddy 06:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless & copyvio Renata3 19:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and do a major rewrite. I don't giva a damn about the Looney Tunes Logo, but this is useful material. I can't see it being original research, the info has merely never been placed together. As for the copyvio, I guess it is posted by the author. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 21:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and make it a little more consistent with National Broadcasting Company logos. Georgia guy 17:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it is encyclopedic, since it's is true knowlege and information. Enough with the pretention.  If cruft doesn't get in the way of an article, let it be! --Nick Dillinger 00:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. tregoweth 03:12, 27 November 2005 (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.