Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBC logos (2nd 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   no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NBC logos
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was created to keep NBC from being long. Georgia guy (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sub-page of main NBC page. Well done article which contains information apt to be of interest to Wikipedia users, thereby improving the Wikipedia experience. Whatever sourcing problems exist lie well within the principle of "correct-not-kill." Carrite (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you can find sources, please do. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not look like a valid excuse to use 9 non-free images.  Since none of it is source, how do we know any of it is valid and verifiable critical commentary?   Mike   Allen   05:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article's been in existence for 5 years and the best sourcing we can come up with is five sources, two of which are primary sources, a fan site, and another encyclopedia? Umm, no. No justification for this overuse of fair use images, and it all smacks of original research. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "other encyclopaedia" is written by Les Brown, erstwhile television editor for Variety and media critic for the New York Times. You don't have much of a leg to stand on in questioning its reliability. And what's your justification for using "we" here?  Where and how did you look for sources?  You haven't mentioned doing that at all.  Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So I have to have actually worked on an article in order to vote on whether it should be deleted it or not? I didn't know that rule. I strike my vote. Thanks for the heads up, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to have worked on the article to vote on it. Whether you work on it or not, !vote. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Then my point stands; if we (the community) haven't been able to find any more sources in five years than what is shown in this article, then this article is very unlikely to ever have significant sources to support it. And Uncle G, the one cite to an encyclopedia supports one sentence only, and that to support a release date of a particular logo. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate what "thorough attempts" have been made to look for sources in those five years? If you can't, then your argument is just WP:NOEFFORT. DHowell (talk)
 * Comment We should salvage this article and in order to do that we will need less original research and more verifiable sources. Otherwise, I can see why this article could be deleted. Bossanueva (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There were five references in the article when it was nominated, including a television encyclopedia, so the nominator's claim that "not a single section is referenced" is quite dubious. I've also discovered that there are plenty of contemporary sources, such as the periodicals Broadcasting and Variety, which are not freely available on the web, which cover network advertising campaigns, trademarks, and logos. I am confident that many sources are out there, but I am not confident they will all be found by someone just sitting behind a computer screen, at least not without access to Lexis/Nexis and/or various magazine archives. And information about NBC logos is quite verifiable, at the very least by primary sources such as video recordings and printed advertising materials, as well as numerous independent sources. "NBC peacock" alone gets thousands of book search results to look through, and one can find a few book and magazine sources about the twin trapezoids as well. DHowell (talk)
 * If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 06:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasons are popular culture, verifiable and factual. This type of content is what distinguishes Wikipedia.AWHS (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination rationale is completely incorrect - there are several sources listed, including a print encyclopedia. Edward321 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2010 (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.