Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (6th 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   Procedural close. Arguments for keeping or deleting the page are lacking. Closing on procedural grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

PBS idents
AfDs for this article: 

I feel that now, more than ever, this article should be put to rest. It appeals to a really minor audience - logo fans - that already have a Wiki focused exclusively on this niche subject. Several editors of said page are also members of this niche Wiki. As a result, I find that the omission of this page will be more reasonable. Freshh (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has survived 5 Afd's, and anyone who votes to delete must explain how it's different now that makes it so that it won't survive this one. Georgia guy (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The nomination does not articulate a valid ground for deletion.  The potentially valid ones have all been discussed exhaustively in prior AfDs.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Largely OR about a minor subject; anything worth noting about PBS logos or idents can be put in the main PBS article. Trivialist (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Five previous AfDs failed to delete it. With enough tries, anything can be deleted. Not just keep, but since this AfD is less than 6 months after the last one, establish a 2 or 3 year moratorium before another bite at the apple. (The nomination is defective, giving no valid reason for deletion except that it appeals to only a niche audience. So does most of the encyclopedia-- different niches, of course. This is essentially IDONTLIKEIT, in the variant, ITINTERESTSONLYOTHERPEOPLE.   DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Nominator fails to advance a policy-based argument for deletion.  While in cases where an article is facially defective, that can be overlooked and the AFD community can piece together what an argument for deletion should have been, this article is a five-time AFD survivor.  At that point, the burden is clearly on the nominator to explain why the weight of previous consensus is defective, but no such burden is met here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - No policy-based rationale for deletion has been presented in the nomination. See also: WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:46, 5 October 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.