Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publicity backdrop


 * 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   delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Publicity backdrop

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:DICT? Can't find any real coverage of the term in RSes. Doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of encyclopedic subject matter. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as dictdef. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 02:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think there is a chance that this will eventually become a topic for which sufficient sources exist, but my sense is that they are not yet out there. Maybe there's another term for these that can be searched? The product-placement backdrops are ubiquitous... Carrite (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment from author - That's the thing. There are so many uses of these all over, yet there are no textual explanations for what purpose these backdrops serve. In fact, I had to come up with the name "publicity backdrop" simply because "backdrop" is already taken for various uses that have little relation to the publicity, photo-op backdrop, and there is no standard name for these sorts of backdrops. "Media backdrop", "step-and-repeat backdrop/banner", I don't get it. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, dicdef, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - this exists, and is used a lot, but I can't see that a whole article could be created from what's there. Can we Wikify to Wiktionary instead? Bearian (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. After a thorough search I am convinced that the subject is already notable, that the de facto name is "step and repeat backdrop", and that there surely are offline sources to confirm this, but online I could only find these two sources, then this page which provides good information despite it being a vendor, and these two which may help the case for the name but are not very useful for our purposes. I'd be glad to support recreation if just a couple more sources were available, specially if they would help establish by which name we should handle it. As for the content it doesn't have to be particularly detailed for an article to exist. Dictionaries and encyclopedias serve different purposes, so where a dictionary would cover this because it is an element of language, an encyclopedia would cover it because it is an element of culture. A mere technical definition, if that is all that can be sourced, would still be encyclopedic content — Frankie (talk) 22:20, 26 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.