Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (2nd nomination)

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 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PBS idents (2nd nomination)

PBS idents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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) 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Survived Afd successfully just over a year ago; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents. Georgia guy 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  Just because it survived AFD once means that the article is automatticly kept Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  Since when? Consensus can change. (No strong opinion on this particular article myself, though.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant doesn't mean, apperently i got reverted [1]

as for me Delete until valid sources are found Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Topic is clearly notable. Something seen by millions of people on a daily basis is notable.--Hobit 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. This is probably a fork of PBS after the main article became too long. It is most certainly verifiable. The fact that each of the logos is on the article as a picture attests to this--somewhere there is information about this. I also don't understand the OR claim--I think it is conflated with the WP:V argument. -- Black Falcon 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve too. I mean, didn't Black Falcon mean "conflicted"? Anyway, yes it is notable. We just have to keep watch for hoaxes - that's all. --Addict 2006 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It was many, many years ago, but I swear that there was even a mini documentary about this subject (yes, on PBS idents)! (jarbarf) 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Usually because nobody bothers to provide references establishing the historical importance of logos. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because I don't want this page's first survival to be for nothing. --Ryanasaurus0077 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It really helped me to understand a few vague childhood memories. That means a lot. --Jnelson09 01:38, 25 February 2007 (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.