Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (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The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure) AfDs for this article: 

PBS idents

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

tagged with original research, missing footnotes, and tone issues for years. Unencyclopedic. RadioFan (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Article has not been significantly improved since last AFD, issues still exists RadioFan (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT. We don't delete articles merely because you are not willing to do the work. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The history of a logo is most certainly encyclopedic, and many of the subsections have links directly to the topics.  The article on the Public Broadcasting Service simply cannot contain this discussion.  Hundreds, if not thousands of reliable sources supporting this information can be found, including Google News.  This is not original research in any way, and I suggest the nominator familiarize himself with how WP:NOR is defined.  There is no idea, theory, or agenda being promoted here, but rather a list of logos used by PBS, easily verified and described.  I'm sure the article can be cleaned up and sourced, but it requires editors willing to do the work.  The original version of the article was based on TVARK (www.tv-ark.org.uk) a classic TV website which continues to get favorable reviews in the press.,,   Granted, this website alone isn't good enough for our purposes, but the links to the Google news sources above and other books and PBS documents can be found to support this information.  If there is anything outlandish or unusual in this article, I don't see it, but the dates definitely need to be checked for accuracy.  Previous two nominations resulted in snow keeps. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm with Viriditas on this one. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The level of detail in the article seems excessive, but on balance, keep. Newt  (winkle) 07:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep NOTPAPER, and tagged with improvement templates is not grounds for deletion. Ronabop (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn there seems to be strong feelings that this article should be kept. Instead of continuing this discussion, let's focus on improving it, especially with the references above.  I'll leave it for a few days.  Anything left unreferenced after that can be removed from the article which will resolve the concerns about excessive length and details in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (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.