Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Revert, for the penalty of not giving a reason. |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussions for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC One logos|BBC One logos]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos of Viacom|Logos of Viacom]]. —[[User:Tregoweth|tregoweth]] ([[User talk:Tregoweth|talk]]) 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussions for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC One logos|BBC One logos]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos of Viacom|Logos of Viacom]]. —[[User:Tregoweth|tregoweth]] ([[User talk:Tregoweth|talk]]) 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. Survived Afd successfully just over a year ago; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents]]. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. Survived Afd successfully just over a year ago; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents]]. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
: Just because it survived AFD once |
: Just because it survived AFD once means that the article is automatticly kept [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. Topic is clearly notable. Something seen by millions of people on a daily basis is notable.--[[User:Hobit|Hobit]] 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. Topic is clearly notable. Something seen by millions of people on a daily basis is notable.--[[User:Hobit|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. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 05:08, 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. -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Probably '''Delete'''. Even if I miss this article, I don't care. [[User:jonghyunchung]] 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment'''. You didn't give a reason. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:55, 20 February 2007
PBS idents (2nd nomination)
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)
- 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)