Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBC 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. B music  ian  09:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Little to nothing here is verifiable through reliable secondary sources. The article currently has multiple YouTube videos as sources, plus a Tripod fansite, neither being acceptable. Other sources in the article are all primary. As with PBS idents and American Broadcasting Company logos, no notability is proven to the logos themselves as no independent sources discuss the history, critical analysis, etc. of the logos. Only the encyclopedia source seems reputable, but to what extent does it discuss the logos? I say not much.

While the article was sent to AFD twice before, the first was kept entirely due to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PRETTY, WP:ITSNOTABLE and whatever the hell "Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos?" is (I say "non sequitur"). AFD the second was no consensus, due in part to one user clamoring that sources do exist but utterly failing to prove it and/or fix it. I see no good sources as it stands, nor any proof of separate notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article could use some work, but the historical changes to the logo of an important company like this are notable in themselves. There's too much info to incorporate into the NBC page, so it makes sense to keep this page on its own. West Eddy (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of "work" do you think can be done? There are no sources discussing the logo in depth. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources include this book (pp. 82-3), this book (going through the snippet views can be fairly time-consuming but there's at least 350+ words about the NBC logo over multiple paragraphs), and this book (pp. 126-7). These results are good enough for me.  Gongshow  Talk 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All of those look trivial to me. Just one or two sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm seeing much more than 1-2 sentences on the subject in each of the previews I'm seeing. For example, I counted in the first book I listed 17 sentences in which the NBC logo is specifically discussed.  Gongshow  Talk 02:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at incorporating these sources into the article.  Gongshow  Talk 06:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A geeky subject, but it has sources, and obviously interests some people enough to write articles and books about it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * KeepMay be hard to find sources for the article, but it's sufficiently notable to warrant a page.


 * Keep It's quite easy to find sources for the article. Here's a few snippets: "NBC's original "snake" logo had been replaced by a succession of others, a process that reached its low point in an arranged marriage between the spiky, Modernist "N" logo of 1980 and the old peacock of 1956. ..."; "The NBC snake that took its place was dying. Now the big boys are going to come up with a different logo. So what do you do at NBC with a problem like this? Do you go to the artists in our graphics department and ask them to draw some ..."; "The casualness about the looks of things carries over to the NBC peacock and the snake sign of the NBC initials. Stanton, who is graphics-minded, would never have tolerated anything so ugly for CBS. ".  Warden (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos?
 * If you don't like the article quality, then you are always welcome to work on fixing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I ponder how and why TPH make some of these nominations.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The work by Gongshow has improved the article, but I'm still not sure if it's enough since major chunks are still unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, as four of the five references I added are dated 2001 and earlier, I have not incorporated sources for the HD/green/holiday logo variations that NBC apparently has used in recent years. So are improvements still needed? Yes, of course (just as with almost any article, naturally). At AfD, the question is whether sources exist to demonstrate that the topic of "NBC logos" is notable. Based on the sources presented so far, which in most instances non-trivially discuss 43+ years of the logo's history (WP:GNG), that answer appears to be yes, as well. As for the unsourced chunks, it's quite likely that not every variation will have been discussed in great depth. Still, it may be possible to find evidence that they existed. For example, lookin' for a source that mentions the green logo? Voila. How about something for that A Hard Day's Night paragraph? Comin' right up. Or the part about NBC getting artists like Al Hirschfeld to do promotional variations? No prob. In other words, addressing these areas is a matter of general article improvement.  Gongshow  Talk 20:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This now has plenty of sources and it's a notable subject in the history of Graphic Design. Yes, it needs more sources, but most articles do.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – I've added the following sources to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 01:58, 14 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.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 01:58, 14 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.
 * 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.