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.  Sandstein  06:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apple Inc. slogans[edit]

List of Apple Inc. slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just did. You're the one who needs to produce some evidence to support your hand-waving assertions. AFD is not cleanup and I'm not seeing any evidence at the article's talk page that you have engaged with the topic per our deletion policy. This just seems to be a superficial drive-by. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reference? That's it? That's all you could find? That shows me the page definitely doesn't meet WP:V. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are many thousands of sources out there. I cited just the first entry because it was the first, not because that was all that is possible. I specifically stated that there were many sources and you have misrepresented my statement. To confirm the truth of my statement, I have added some more sources - easy work which you could have done yourself if you had performed the due diligence required by our deletion process. In your nomination, you stated that the article had no sources. This was also a misrepresentation as the article had two sources at that time, both of which stand up when checked. It seems that you are making false claims due to lack of proper care. This is disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The burden of finding sources lies on those who insist that they exist. The only hand-waving going on here is that you're trying to assert that finding a single source is enough to assume that "thousands" exist. Please assume good faith and check the tone of your arguments for WP:CIVIL. SnottyWong speak 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tu quoque. This is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of competence and accuracy. You too misrepresent the facts. I found thousands of sources. I cited first one as a sample and then several more. There were already sources in the article. Please argue from evidence not from faith. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to argue from evidence if you would supply some. If you have thousands of sources at your fingertips, certainly it would be easier to provide a few rather than continuing to argue and avoid the issue. In particular, I think we need some sources that discuss these slogans as a group, not a thousand sources that mention each slogan individually. SnottyWong yak 16:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already provided numerous sources and amongst these are sources which discuss multiple slogans. Your demand for exhaustive sourcing is unreasonable when you yourself do no work. Please see WP:BATTLE which indicates that you should not make demands of this sort. See also WP:INSPECTOR and WP:SEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources you have provided each discuss 2 or 3 slogans, at best. I have not seen any sources which discuss and analyze "Apple slogans" as a group, where "Apple slogans" is the main subject of the source, or is at least significantly discussed and not just mentioned in passing. You are attempting to substantiate the notability of the slogans by piecing together multiple sources which mention them separately, which is a kind of synthesis. I am not making demands of you, I am simply suggesting that your argument is lacking evidence to back it up, and that if you'd like your argument to make more sense you should probably prove that such sources exist. SnottyWong verbalize 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are abusing our synthesis policy by making a false claim that the article is constructing a synthetic conclusion from multiple sources. The article does nothing of the kind - it just lists the stated slogans in a matter-of-fact way and there is no conclusion or theory stated. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A title change such as you suggest would be performed using the move function, not by deletion. Our deletion policy is that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 10:06, 13 July 2010
  • This is a common argument of yours, and it is unhelpful in most cases, including this one. The article is already at AfD, and attempting to invalidate the discussion every time someone suggests that the article be moved, merged, or redirected (basically anything other than keep or delete) is not going to accomplish anything. The opinion of SharkxFanSJ is that the article should be deleted, but he is offering an alternate solution to the problem and a possible option of keeping all or part of the article under a different title. Perhaps you should review the AfD Guide to Deletion more thoroughly, particularly the part which shows that !votes other than Keep or Delete are perfectly valid. SnottyWong converse 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of AFD is to control the use of the delete function which is specially restricted. This is a simple binary decision which becomes quite confused if it is muddled with content-editing considerations which have infinite variety. In this case, User:SharkxFanSJ seems to suggest that we should move some or all of the content to the new title, History of Apple advertising. This is a reasonable suggestion but would not require use of the delete function. The point of the policy cited is that, when we are are able to improve the article by ordinary editing then we do not delete it. If we delete the article then it is gone and resurrection is complicated by the loss of the edit history and the resulting lack of attribution per our licence. Please see WP:MAD for a fuller explanation. So, I comment on this in detail lest the closing admin misunderstand the headline !vote of Delete and not realise that the user is, in fact, suggesting that we retain some or all of the material, which would be a variety of Keep. Misunderstandings of this sort are sadly common here and so you can expect to see this explained repeatedly. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the point of AfD is a binary decision, then you should probably gain consensus to change the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes, which offers quite a few different decisions than keep or delete. For the record, this editor's !vote was to Delete, first and foremost, with a suggestion that it might be possible to salvage some of the content by moving it to an article with a different scope. I don't see why this is so confusing for you. SnottyWong gossip 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because move and delete are contrary functions - trying to have your cake and eat it. If we want to do something with this article then we just use ordinary editing functions. Simples. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that every entry that I've looked at has been easy to verify, your vote seems absurdly counterfactual. Please provide some examples of unverifiable content and explain why we can't just remove that and leave the verified material. Our editing policy, states clearly that we should try to preserve what we can. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you have only added 9 referenced to the 100+ (but probably more) slogans on the page, it seems like you are doing alot of hand waving then actually adding these references you have claimed to have found. If you have references, add them already...otherwise, you are just putting up alot of smoke and mirrors to cover up a really bad excuse for an article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some particular slogan that you would like sourcing? Sources are not required for everything in Wikipedia - only for disputed or extraordinary statements. Many or most articles in Wikipedia have fewer sources than this one and we don't delete them all - we retain them for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um...all of them? Otherwise, they are unsourced, can't be confirmed and should be removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd actually be satisfied if you produced a source or two which establish the notability of Apple advertising slogans in general, rather than producing a thousand sources which prove the existence of each individual slogan. Such sources would prove that this article is not in violation of WP:NOTDIR, and therefore should be kept. Sourcing every last entry, however, is not a necessary prerequisite for keeping an article at AfD, Neutralhomer. The only sources we need are those that prove the notability of the subject per WP:GNG. SnottyWong yak 20:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll interpret your silence as an admission that you cannot find any such sources as described in my comments above. SnottyWong chatter 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it just means there limit to how much time I'm prepared to waste on this volunteer effort - please see WP:BATTLE and WP:INSPECTOR. But I have added yet another source which, as part of a general history of Apple, lists a bunch of slogans in much the same style that we do here. It's Alex Brooks (2006), Happy 30th Birthday, 1996 – 2006, World of Apple — Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good finds. It seems that we have a large number of articles about Apple advertising and that this list is a navigation spin off from them per WP:SIZE. As several slogans have their own article such as Get a Mac and Think Different, the list serves a useful navigational purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just say let's agree to disagree on whether there's a size problem on the other articles, but I'm glad to be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the articles should be considered as a set. If some consolidation or restructuring seems appropriate then this can be performed by ordinary editing - merger and the like. It is our editing policy to keep the good bits such as the sourcing which the list contains. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our core policy states "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." Please tell us of the reasonable efforts which you have made in accordance with this and our other policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. One of the references [1] for this page is a book (written by a university professor) with a central theme being the analysis of one of these slogans. Therefore WP:Notability is beyond doubt. They almost certainly all pass the WP:V criteria. There are undoubtedly other references, many of these are famous.AWHS (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2010 (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