Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We've Got the Touch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to delete or merge for Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit, CBS: Television You Can Feel, and Get Ready for CBS; delete the other seven. Merging the remaining three, or recreating them all as a list, is editorial, however consensus from this debate is that seven of the ten should be deleted, which is what has happened. Daniel 09:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We've Got the Touch

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/We've Got the Touch Articles for deletion/We've Got the Touch (2nd nomination)
We've Got the Touch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


Also includes:

I originally PROD'd some of these, but they were de-PROD'd by an IP editor. All of these slogan articles are full of unverified original research and have a strong POV element. Removing all the unsouced POV would leave a stub that would basically just say "X was a slogan used by CBS from <year>-<year>", which would be redundant with List of CBS slogans. The only useable content from these articles are the images and if they were properly updated with fair use rationales they could be added to the List article. There simply isn't much retainable content in these articles, so Delete or Merge.--Isotope23 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

added "or Merge", as proposed by Waggers (talk · contribs); it seems a good middle ground solution.--Isotope23 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

-The summaries in these articles aren't written to represent someone's point of view, they accurately describe all important elements of each campaign. A lot of this would border on common knowledge, since it isn't private information that could only be dug up in a network history reference. These campaigns were publicly seen and memorable by the public, even if they were only used for a single TV season. I vote for it to stay. -KTBEar456 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.199.254 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete All None of them assert their notability as slogans. Might be OR, but I wouldn't know, because no references are given, which is my next issue. There are no references that help to establish these campaign slogans. There are no independent critical articles on them, and they aren't innovative in the marketing field. Tdmg 03:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do some of you have a hard time finding notability in these articles? I believe the author said in another deletion argument that you all focus too much on the slogans, and not enough on the fact that the pieces cover the campaigns as a whole. Just because every piece stars with "X was a slogan used on CBS during said season(s)" doesn't mean it's just about the slogan itself. The slogans were just the main tool used to identify one campaign from another. Also, you're not likely to find archived articles on every network campaign, but everything can be sourced because for all articles written, promos can be found floating around, especially on YouTube. I think everything should be linked up to these videos, and we'll be all set. KEEP-JCarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.199.254 (talk • contribs)

Not innovative? It doesn't matter how innovative they were or not! These campaigns were very much seen by the public and quite memorable, even if they lasted a short time. People do research on this stuff, ya know. Also, some of you got the Welcome Home article down, and THAT was quite an innovative promotional era for CBS >:O -Gary Rosetti ('SAVE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.199.254 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that none of this is in any way sourced... even in those 3 you've mentioned.--Isotope23 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple of IP's went through and removed the AFD notices, then added YouTube links with uncertain copyright status in as "references" (which really only references that these spots exist, something that isn't in dispute). I've reverted these changes, but it should be noted that many of the articles didn't have AFD notices for a day or 2.--Isotope23 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response All I said was that if we could find sources, those three articles appear to be salvageable. WAVY 10 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you were saying they were sourced.--Isotope23 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, we need to get this settled once and for all. While there was never any question that these campaigns existed or not, I get the feeling that Isotope23 and Edtropolis are trying to shut me down because after I listed video sources, they were removed the next day. Again, you guys need to start making connections: the videos I linked to completely verify everything that is covered in the articles, from promotional practices to artistic styles. With the videos confirming all that info, it isn't strictly original research anymore. Just because the proof isn't in article form doesn't make it any less valid. I do care about Wikipedia standards and try my best to have everything be credible, but some of you are just going way too overboard with your motives to delete. People do care about this stuff. --User:numbaonestunna 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't remove them to "try and shut you down". I removed the videos because it wasn't clear that the uploader actually had permission to upload what is certainly copywritten material (see WP:C and WP:EL). If these articles are kept those videos still shouldn't be linked there. Beyond that there are still large amounts of original research in the articles that those videos don't in any way address.--Isotope23 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of those videos come from a reliable YouTube source who has proper copyright notices up himself, so they are in no way infringing on anything. Those do in fact cover most of the info. in the articles, because everything discussed appeared in TV promos. If Wiki rules state that videos aren't an acceptable form of citing, than perhaps it's time to revise some rules. It's not going to be possible to find an article on any given campaign that exactly covers what I do. Archived videos are the only way, so far, that my pieces can be backed up. Hopefully more people will contribute here and maybe aid in the effort to find old articles that cover a least a portion of what is stated. I also understand five days is the norm for deletion, but Isotope, if you're the only one with article problems/issues, you cannot delete with you being the only person voting for it. It requires a lot more people and participation than this. --User:numbaonestunna 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I actually will not be the one deleting this (if consensus should deem that it deletion is warrented) as I nominated it. Deleting this myself would be a huge conflict of interest.--Isotope23 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm coming in late here, but I would think that a video could certainly be a cited source for an article, provided it meets the usual WP:RS requirements. For a YouTube clip, that seems to me to mean that the original source of the video is given, not just the video itself (the reliability of the info depends primarily on the creator not the uploader). That's unrelated to concerns about copyright violations involved in the uploading. I'm not on a computer that can view YouTube, so I don't know what it means that the uploader "has proper copyright notices up", but stating that something is copyrighted does mean it's okay to infringe on that copyright by exceeding fair use of the video. If the thing runs afoul of that, then I don't think Wikipedia should be linking it for any reason (don't want to be seen as supporting copyright infringement)...this is quite a different area of WP policy (if there is one about this?) than the issue of using video-links as article references. DMacks 06:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The YouTube video issue is really separate from the fact that the bulk majority of these articles is unsourced original research and opinion. The fact is that the videos do not source large tracts of these articles; they just establish that these videos exist, what the slogan was, and who appeared in the spots none of which is tied to the reason I submitted these article for deletion. I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I'm just going on my reading of WP:EL and WP:C in regards to the videos. My understanding is that you can't link to a video unless it is clear that the uploader has permission to distribute this content (i.e. upload it onto YouTube) or provides a fair use rationale. It isn't enough that they just clearly state that the material is copywritten. If the articles are kept, we can continue this discussion at one of the article talkpages and if anyone is interested in seeing the videos for themselves for purposes of this AFD they are free to visit the article history.--Isotope23 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

'Isotope, most of the information in the articles do come from the videos, like I said. Therefore, if we link to the videos, everything that I discussed would be cited. Also, I do have permission to link to these videos from the owner. I don't know where you're getting the idea that much of this stuff is opinion, when everything is explained the way it appeared, with hardly any guesswork or assumptions involved. -numbaonestunna

As I've said before, it isn't enough that you have permission from the video uploader to link these here; he/she has to have permission from CBS to have uploaded them to YouTube in the first place. You getting permission from someone who may be violating copyright isn't enough. Regardless, if these are kept I will go through them and point our/remove the guesswork and assumptions that exist. There is quite a bit more of that then you seem to be portraying here.--Isotope23 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or merge into CBS - see Sainsbury's#Advertising for a good example of how it can be done. We don't need an individual article on each slogan. Either these should be merged into CBS or into a new CBS slogans (or similarly named) article. Unreferenced material should be tagged as such. Waggers 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is actually a decent idea. The parts of the article that are not original research could be merged to a single article (and the list article could be a redirect there as well). The video link discussion could be continued there and if enough WP:V, WP:RS sources are found that any individual campaign can support a fully sourced article it could always be broken back out to the original namespace.--Isotope23 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd go ahead and add the information you found from the sources, but I'm a little iffy on the usefulness of the FortuneCity one. WAVY 10 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the FortuneCity site isn't exactly WP:RS material and really only establishes that the slogans exist with a screenshot, which isn't the issue here anyway.--Isotope23 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A fair amount of that detailed info will likely need to be edited out as unsourced original research if those articles are kept.--Isotope23 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Did some work to the articles, removing much of the OR (and in Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit's case, re-working the tone) in the articles. Not sure if it will help. Also, I would amend my proposal to (if the articles are kept), split Share the Spirit of CBS/CBSpirit into two separate articles. WAVY 10 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see you took out some of the worst offenders as far as OR/POV is concerned. There are some more changes I think would be beneficial, but to be honest I'm just waiting to see what the outcome of the AFD is... I hate working on something that just gets deleted. I still think a merge is a sensible solution.--Isotope23 17:33, 13 July 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.