Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos of Viacom

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 without prejudice for including some of this information in the Viacom article. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for AFD before.

When I found this article, I began to question why this is on Wikipedia. What this is a summary of the various logos used by Viacom since their existance. This includes the "V" that was used in the 1970's and 1980's and some of the more stylized versions later on.

Articles on other logos do exist, such as the Nike Swoosh and, similar to the Viacom article, this. But, this one is different. I see a lot of content that was be considered non-enecylopedic and are denoted in every heading using notes that are seen upon pressing edit. Second, I remember somewhere that while Wikipedia wishes to present the world knowledge, it is not the host of indiscriminate information. I believe this article is full of nothing that adds to the value of what Viacom is or did during their existance. While an outright delete is my main goal, a redirect to this article would suffice or even just a link to a Viacom logos website.

I also wish to point out that because of the Viacom vs. YouTube issue, many copies of said logos, including parodies, have been uploaded to the site. Since they are new, I have no idea if this will be a lasting impact on the logos themselves or part of some cheap and quick viral campaign. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it seems the nominator themselves are struggle to express a reason for deletion. And I'll pressume they are not aware of a similar time when this same article was put up for deletion with a result of keep? Mathmo ^Talk 12:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew about the first AFD, but I forgot to link it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the decision on a similar article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BBC_One_logos. The scant text that does accompany each logo does little but describe what we can see already. This appears to violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, which requires that the text provide an encyclopedic context. Aplomado ^talk 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:Movementarian on the last AFD - "Boring? Yes, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it." -Halo 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gonna go with a Merge and Redirect to Viacom here, on the grounds that the subject has some interest and notability for Viacom's history (so it's worth keeping around somewhere), but the article itself isn't much more than an image repository that describes the logos - and we're not an image repository. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep for reasons mentioned above, and has a bit of useful information. As previous nom., as well. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; subtrivia barely worth a sentence in the Viacom article, much less an entire article on its own. —tregoweth (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to add that I wish I had said what Shirahadasha does below. —tregoweth (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Viacom: There's really no reason to have two articles about Viacom. This article could easily be absorbed by the Viacom article as a section. Viacom is notable, but it's logos are not, in my opinion, notable by themselves.--Aervanath 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article has little point - it's just a collection of logos. --- Jacques Pirat - Talk : Contribs 04:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. Absolutely no independent sources showing that this topic has been covered by independent, reliable publications. Unless reliable sources are produced indicating the logos themselves are notable and objects of independent study, deletion is compelled by Wikipedia policy. --Shirahadasha 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Viacom. Viacom is notable, so their logo is....but it doesn't deserve it's own page. Philippe Beaudette 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per Philippe Beaudette. The only logo in the list of any notability is the 1976 logo, and even then I don't think there's enough to warrant an article. Korranus 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per above. I really don't think all of it needs to be kept, but some can be transferred into the main Viacom article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Aplomado. if not deleted, merge. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 07:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research and pointless cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a gallery of corporate logos, let alone a publisher of OR analyses of such logos. Viacom is notable, it's logos are not (unless of course someone can find multiple, independent, reliable sources of which these images are the subject). -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if there was information on what instigated the change, what it was inspired by, or something more than on this date they changed the colour to blue, on that date the made it sharper then it might be a worthwhile article. ^{Khukri -} 09:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Aervanath Ulysses Zagreb 09:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons stated before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvanKnight69 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge to Viacom. Logos are non-notable in its own right and I don't see why Viacom's logo needs an article on its own. The useful and encyclopedic content of the article can be merged with the main article. Terence Ong 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious OR. No reliable, independent sources. Recury 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORYTellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Inkpaduta 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Viacom as we don't need this much articles about Viacom. ~~Magistrand~~ 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect there is some valuable information here, but not enough to warrant its own article. Mkdw^talk 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, other pages for logos have also been deleted, such as Columbia Televison, see those AFDs. Booshakla 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no independent sources for this topic. This is original research. -- Alan McBeth 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would like anyone voting keep to explain to me what is encyclopedic about this: "The screen also changes color, from red to green and then violet. After the word is completed, the view pulls back to reveal the phrase "A Viacom Presentation" on a blue screen. A final note holds until the jingle's conclusion." Aplomado ^talk 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Because we don't have videos on here (yet). Abeg92contribs 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And we will not have videos until the logos go out of copyright in about 50 years or so. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Philippe Beaudette. While I do feel the logos are notable enough to have information about them on Wikipedia, I don't feel the need for a separate page. --Mikibacsi1124 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it does serve a purpose for the encyclopedia. Abeg92contribs 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.