Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikisource 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource logo

I can think of no reason why this topic should have it's own article in an encyclopedia. Not one. Is that a good enough reason for deletion? Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Wikisource; neither can I. --Merovingian {T C @} 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (I do not see what could be interesting to merge). Note also that the image shown is the old wikisource logo. - Liberatore(T) 13:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to meta or to wikisource. Good idea by the editors below: there is no reason why this couldn't exist as an "internal" document. - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Amazon lists 1491 books with logo in the title. I don't know the name right now, but there is a periodical that costs something like $8 for a couple pages, describing the development and creation of logos, not even variations. There is a viewership for this sort of thing. Yes, the brand this logo IDs is relatively insignificant, but we've got to start developing this sort of content somewhere. There are thousands of full-time, professional graphic designers, just in the US and Canada. Do they not deserve something to read? -- Zanimum 14:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the importance of graphics in general and logos in particular. The question is whether this one logo here is significant enough. - Liberatore(T) 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB: "The content", in this case a logo, "is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Also, the information is independently verifiable. -- Zanimum 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The main point is the word "independent". The wikisource logo is available via the wikisource web site; that's not what was intendended by "independent". Otherwise, I could write an article for every image I draw, since it is distributed by Wikipedia, which is "independent" of me. - Liberatore(T) 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you could not write an article on every image you draw, as every image you draw isn't verifiable and referenced, as these two images are. -- Zanimum 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per above. Xyrael ^T 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta Weak Keep per Zanimum. Comment: we have a Wikipedia logo article as well. --Zoz (t) 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd delete that as well... There is a difference, however: wikipedia is a top 20 web site, wikisource is a top 12,000. - Liberatore(T) 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd delete that as well? That's interesting because you wrote "Nobody is questioning the importance of graphics in general and logos in particular" and "wikipedia is a top 20 web site" just before. I can't follow your reasoning. --Zoz (t) 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about logos, it's about the Systemic bias. Things that are "close to us" often appear more notable than they actually are. Most of the people who partecipate in AfD discussions spend lot of time on Wikipedia, so Wikipedia-related things appear more important than they actually are (as a recent example, a wikipedia editor appeared notable to 40 people out of ~150 even if he was only mentioned once in a local newspaper). We are often on the Internet, so Internet-related things look more interesting than they actually are, etc.

For this reason, I always question the actual notability of things that are so "close" to Wikipedia. You have a point about the Wikipedia logo, but I am still unconvinced about this one: how many logos of websites in the Alexa rank range 11,000-12,000 we have articles about? Since not long ago, we used to delete articles about website of rank >10,000! - Liberatore(T) 23:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd support a transwiki to meta then, as a consensus. Would you consider changing your vote to transwiki, then? --Zoz (t) 14:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Move somewhere outside of Wikipedia article namespace - I don't know where the most appropriate place is. This is good info for those interested in the minutiae of Wikimedia history, but it doesn't really seem to belong in an encyclopedia. Same goes for the Wikipedia logo article. flowersofnight (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Google logo in the article namespace and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia logo. --Zoz (t) 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a move to Wikipedia:Wikisource logo or a transwiki to Meta. - Liberatore(T) 00:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to s:Wikisource:Wikisource logo. This is an administrative item relating to another Wikimedia project, so it belongs in the project namespace of that project. (By the same token, the article Wikipedia logo ought to be at Wikipedia:Wikipedia logo.) --Metropolitan90 01:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Alter this proposal to wikisource.org instead of the English subdomain, and it will make better sense.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn cruft.  Grue  10:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What about Wikimedia logos, for this article, the WP logo article, plus info on all the others? -- Zanimum 13:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See meta. We could merge this article there --Zoz (t) 14:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the Wikipedia logo was based on. However, these articles are briefer, less ramble, more understandable by people outside the community. -- Zanimum 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Transwiki or put under the Wikipedia:Article name space --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 07:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into main article and keep a copy in Wikisource.--HereToHelp 01:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the interesting bits to Wikisource (the article) and transwiki the full text to Meta and/or Wikisource (the site) - here, it's mainly navel-gazing, but there's no reason to just do away with an interesting document someone has bothered to write, even if it is not fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- grm_wnr Esc 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How would propose getting an article moved out of the article namespace besides putting it here? Doesn't AfD mean "remove this from article namespace" rather than "delete all traces"? Wikipedia has such multitude of processes it hard to know if you are taking the best fitting approach. I don't mind the critiscism, but would appreciate if alternate suggestion accompianed it.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, submitting the article to AfD was perfectly okay, even if it doesn't result in outright deletion. I know of no process that would be more fitting in this situation myself, even though there might be one. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Saw your edit summary - I consider the article navel-gazing, not this discussion. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That gives your comment a different reading. This is hopefully the last time I decide I understand a term purely from context. Especially when the context is just another assumption. Don't no why I decided the comment was critical of the nomination. I guess I am just in a bad mood.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:28, 6 June 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.