Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia logo

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 of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia logo

This page should be moved from the mainspace to a Wikipedia:Internal page. It is only fair we apply the same exacting standards of inclusion on ourselves. If there were, say, an Amazon.com logo article, there would be a forced merge. Someone argues that there are a lot of Google hits for "wikipedia logo" (300k+), but typical of all Internet brands--"Amazon logo" gets 3 mil+--the numbers are high for whatever user. move into the internal space

Lotsofissues 18:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. We absolutely should apply our own standards to articles about Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related phenomenon. Wikipedia is the premiere internet encyclopedia and one of the most popular websites on the internet by traffic. It is also an internet phenomenon. The article as written uses an encyclopedic tone and is clearly meant as a complement to the article Wikipedia. It's not a project: namespace or meta article by any stretch of the imagination as far as I am concerned and it's certainly not something we should be wanting to delete. --kingboyk 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent of Google logo. Pepsidrinka 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article appears as valid an inclusion as the Google logo article. Both are notable Internet brands and resources, their respective histories are also notable for researchers.  (aeropagitica)  23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• The Google logo article is about a tradition--not just a logo. Google is also the number 1 Internet brand, far above our notoriety. Lotsofissues 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Are you intending to vote either way, or simply comment? -- user:zanimum

Per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise." In other words, User:Lotsofissues voted delete simply by nominating the article for deletion and not saying it wasn't to be construed as a delete vote. Angr/talk 23:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Google logo. If there are not articles on other massively recognisable logos, then there should be. Proto||type 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• I see little relation to the Google logo, which is iconic to the entire internet. Wikipedia logo is really only iconic to its editors (that's us!!). Move article to Wikipedia namespace and remove links to the same per WP:ASR. -- Krash (Talk) 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with History of Wikipedia. Would fit in better there. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I like that idea better. Merge per Andylkl. -- Krash (Talk) 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine in principle, but isn't that article in danger of growing too large? --kingboyk 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose the Wikipedia logo article could be trimmed and compressed at least a little, and the logos be inserted within the gallery tags, then it would do fine there. :) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 08:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. To unimportant for inclusion in the main history article, to important to not have. It is an element of our brand, and this is an encyclopedic history of our brand. -- user:zanimum
• Keep per Google logo. Ashibaka tock 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia, therefore it should be prepared to accept contributions which are new and for which little precedent may exist. I was pleased to see the article existed when I tried to explain what tesellate means.

Regards, Gregorydavid 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think Wikipedia-related material should be held to more stringent standards than Google. JonMoore 18:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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.