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. MBisanz talk 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airline liveries and logos[edit]

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

This is an unencyclopedic collection of information. The only point to it at all is the classification, and that appears to be original research. —teb728 t c 08:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonsense - the logos are clearly being used to illustrate the sections about the respective airlines. The compendious nature of the article is no bar to such fair use. In any case, the image issue is irrelevant since we are not at IFD and the article is wider in scope than any particular airline or image. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not just a list of logos. For example, the first section on birds, provides details and links to the type of bird. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel, "notability" issue in this AFD is clearly secondary to copyright policy (Quote: In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.). Survival of the article depends on trimming down the graphics, or persuading the community to take an exception (good luck, but seems a WP:SNOW to me). P.S. Hint: isn't it odd that the logo is FU, but a photograph of an airplane in full livery is not? NVO (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point is unclear but it is, in any case, irrelevant. The topic is notable and the article's use of images is a matter of content editing, not deletion per the emphatic statement of WP:AFD: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Please note that the nomination did not say one word about images. Its complaint was that the article was unencyclopedic. This claim has been been shown to be false and so the nomination should be rejected. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is pretty clear. Use photos from commons of aircraft with logos showing, instead of logos on their own which is a copyright infringement. As the article stands now it is a massive copyright infringement, and could have been speedied on that basis. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because it looks to me like just a list of airline logos accompanied by a fragment of a sentence stating what, in your opinion, the logo means. NcSchu(Talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I should note that concerns about copyright violations are indeed relevant. Even if the page is kept, all logos will have to be removed as they are non-free. NcSchu(Talk) 16:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this discussion is only about whether the article should be deleted or not. All this talk about images belongs elsewhere, such as the talk page for the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (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.
More