Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Globe Logo


 * 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. There is no consensus whether the article should be kept or merged. But in any case, the original research must be removed. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Globe Logo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Globe Logo. Graham 87 04:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Note that the article was moved to the Wikipedia namespace, then its original creator, moved it to the article namespace twice by ]cut and pasting its content. I undid the first cut-and-paste moved, but history merged the page after the second one, since the user had made substantial edits to the page. Graham 87  04:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My main problem with this article is the absolute lack of reliable, published sources. This is made more of an issue by the fact that the article appears to be a series of personal observations about the Wikipedia logo, particularly its 'symbolism' in relation to Uncyclopedia (one of the three 'symbolism' paragraphs is about its symbolism), other wiki-sites, and the immigration policies of Canada and the United States of America. There may be scope for such an article, but for this to be saved, its going to need verifiable content from at least one reliable source discussing the logo in detail. -- saberwyn 06:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The big problem here is that while projectspace articles can either elide references altogether or use primary sources from WikiMedia, we have a higher standard for articlespace. The logo is not so iconic, so far as I can see, that it's had significant coverage outside of WM sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This debate was originally at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Globe Logo.  The comments there should be transcluded here as some of them are still relevant.  The closing admin can decide whether or not the comments made there are still applicable.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have my doubts about this article's notability. There might have been mentions of it in some reliable, published sources, but probably always in connection with Wikipedia. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything notable about the logo can go in the Wikipedia article, but the content here is mostly original research.  Powers T 14:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just noticed this AfD. I had placed a warning on this user's page on another issue, and was expecting to vote to delete this page. However, in fairness, I have to vote "keep." It's a terrible article, and I agree that it is mostly original research, and is written poorly. However, the globe logo is widely duplicated and I can see why it may warrant an article. This article should be kept "only" if proper sourcing can be found. If not, it should be nominated again and deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article is currently terrible, but the logo's certainly well known, and there appear to be enough reliable sources to establish notability and write a short, well sourced article. I.e. this NYT article.  We should also give a soft redirect/link to wp:Wikipedia logos. Buddy431 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But is there anyone willing to make the necessary improvements, or will the article just sit here in its current terrible state? Powers T 13:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is not cleanup: the topic is clearly notable, so the article can stay. If you don't like it, fix it yourself. Buddy431 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the notable information in a parent article until there is enough high-quality, sourced writing to split out? Powers T 17:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I believe that it would be better to have an article on a notable topic, even a poor one, rather than none at all.  There's room for reasonable disagreement about the issue. Buddy431 (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination does not provide a reason to delete this notable topic and so there is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because it's a procedural nomination, one started because the original nomination was (newly) in the wrong spot. Powers T 13:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That other nomination was based on the idea that there shouldn't be two such pages in project space. This makes no sense as a reason to delete here, where the article is in article space.  There is no case to answer.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This was an intelligent relist by an admin who had read the comments raised in that MfD. Stop wasting people's time trying to wikilawyer it closed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I've looked again at the other discussion and the nomination here makes no sense. We should not have to guess what the reasons for deletion are supposed to be and the matter is sufficiently confusing that a clear summary is required in the nomination.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of the nomination statement at "the other discussion" are you referring to? The part that "makes no sense"? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 17:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, there was no reason for it to be here, simply because it was discussed there. The original nomination's reason "We don't need two project-space articles on the same topic." is not valid here, it now in main article space, and no other article has the same information, in main space.    D r e a m Focus  01:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The original creator moved the page by cut and paste from the Wikipedia namespace to the main namespace several times. After the third or fourth time, I got sick of cleaning up after the cut-and-paste moves, so I decided to move the discussion from MFD to AFD. In hindsight it would probably have been better to just protect the main namespace redirect. Graham 87 01:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Wikipedia taking into account the point about sifting out original research, raised by . ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable logo, seen everywhere when referring to Wikipedia.  D r e a m Focus  01:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wikipedia logos.  Kubek15  write / sign 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wikipedia. Once the original research has been removed, there's not enough to say about the logo to justify having a separate article on it; this can easily be merged into the main Wikipedia article. Robofish (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When editors edit the Wikipedia article, they are told "This page is 116 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Article size". So, that policy indicates that we should not be merging, we should be splitting that article into to more managable pieces such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: we shouldn't be merging to the Wikipedia article. If it must be pared down to a stub, so be it.  It's better than cramming more in our huge main article. Buddy431 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 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.