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. By the strength of the arguments, it was closer to keep than delete. Georgia Guy's sanity had no bearing on my decision. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBS idents[edit]

PBS idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Somehow, this article has survived four prior AFDs, none of which have helped the fact that it's still an indiscriminate collection of info. Some details are sourced but by and large the article is made up of WP:RS with no critical analysis to suggest why it's actually notable outside of the company it represents. All other prior AFDs have only said "it's useful". WP:IINFO and WP:RS apply — no sources give any significant detail to the logos themselves or critical commentary on them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, nom #2 was "keep, it was just AFDed last year", and nom #4 was malformed, so don't let that #5 here scare you. Either way, the other prior AFDs were kept entirely due to WP:SOFIXIT arguments without proving in any fashion that there was a way to fix it. No independent sources were brought forth, nor was notability ever proven; most arguments were just WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would like to know what to do when you feel extremely afraid that an article will be deleted per Afd. I feel extremely afraid that this article will be deleted. (Too afraid that even simply voting to keep will not help.) Any suggestions?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have nothing to say here other than, what the heck are you "afraid" of? WP:NOTTHERAPY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the article will be deleted this time. Georgia guy (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's worth getting all tied up over? Really? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The history of prior AFDs is not convincing, as none were well attended or thoroughly discussed. A history of logos (or most any other business attribute) is not an encyclopedic subject apart from the organization it represents, absent a showing that there is something about this particular organization or its particular logos that makes it a distinct subject. With nearly every highly notable subject one could call out a particular aspect of its structure or history (history of IBM plant closure, history of New York Metropolitan Police union negotiating sessions, history of pedestrian fatalities at the intersection of 9th and Main Street) and find enough sources to write an article, even sources that synthesize it all to suggest there is a connection. But there are only a handful of logos or corporate branding histories that have their own articles here: I Love New York, Nike's Swoosh, the Google logo. There must be a thousand US organizations equally as prominent as PBS, each with its own history of logos and branding. Do we want to have separate articles about each of their logos? If not, would we just have some random articles here and there when people care to create them? That's not a good way to organize information for an encyclopedia. There has to be some reason, a pattern, some service to the reader. This is well-sourced, interesting information to be sure and it would be a shame to lose that much effort. This just isn't the right place for it. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (1) The four prior AfDs, all keeps, do contain substantive discussion, notably Viriditas' comments at the third AfD and Black Falcon's at the second, and show a broad consensus in favor of the notability of this subject. (2) The concurrent discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBC logos (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Broadcasting Company logos (3rd nomination) demonstrate that there is still support for the notability and encyclopedic nature of network logo history, a broader topic of which this article is a significant part. Deleting this article would damage Wikipedia's currently comprehensive coverage of the topic. (4) The PBS logo in particular, created by the notable designer Herb Lubalin and later revised by the equally notable designers Chermayeff & Geismar, and has been the subject of substantial coverage over the years. I have added some of the available sources, and GBooks and GNews searches indicate that more sources exist off-line or behind paywalls, plus a segment of the highly regarded 1982 series Media Probes[1]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Arxiloxos. I also invoke a hypothetical future Wikipedia rule that makes it possible to prevent WP from becoming redundant to a thorough Google search. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability is not inherited. This article does not establish why the logos in themselves are notable, merely that "PBS had a lot of logos". Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whether a logo itself is notable in its own right can decide whether it can get its own article, such as PBS 1971 logo. However, there are no such articles; just this article, talking about all the logos PBS has had, as a part of how the network has changed over its 42-year history. Georgia guy (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I just don't see the encyclopedic value here; to me this qualifies as trivia or completism. Hairhorn (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with User:Viriditas' analysis in the 3rd AfD. In theory it could be appropriate to merge this article to the Public Broadcasting System article, but that would give undue weight to this topic within that article and so retaining as a separate standalone article is most appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since, for example, almost all the logos are slight variations of the same image, this entry is arguably overlong already. Hairhorn (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cannot endorse the claim that it is an indiscriminate list. BO; talk 11:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I had a dream last night in which this article was deleted per this Afd. Georgia guy (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2012 (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.