Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBC logos

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBC logos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussions for BBC One logos and Logos of Viacom. —tregoweth (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and reference. Very well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article was forked from NBC in October 2005, so we should probably check the parent article for pertinent references. Notability shouldn't be a concern, as it is a corporate mark for one of the world's largest multimedia conglomerates. Caknuck 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into the NBC article, no reason to have its own article. TJ Spyke 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NBC article is already 42KB. The reason the fork was done was to adhere to WP:SIZE. Caknuck 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a policy. TJ Spyke 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge per User:Caknuck and/or User:TJ Spyke. As long as the content is not deleted, I personally don't much care where it ends up. However, if the creation of this page was the result of consensus at Talk:NBC, then keep and reference. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reference. The subject seems notable enough to me. --TheSlyFox 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same reasons as TheSlyFox WAVY 10 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. Very nice article. Rothorpe 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. bibliomaniac15 06:01, 23 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.