Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC One logos

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC One logos

Contested prod which gave no vaild reason to keep the article. The article violates WP:FAIR and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY as the article only contains a gallery of fair use images of the BBC One logo, which were taken from the main BBC One article. The large number of images have no text alongside them to meet fair use policy or notability guidelines. The article is also redundant to the BBC television idents article, which provides a textual analysis of the logos used on BBC One. tgheretford (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with nomination. --Wildnox (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination by tgheretford. S .D. ¿п? § 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Copyvio. MER-C 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Preserve the history of the logo on Wikipedia. 70.240.114.118 01:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ~~Move to Commons~~ Redirect - An article on Wikipedia is not just a group of images. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC) edit: BBC television idents is basically what the article -should- be. :-)[reply]
Delete What a ridiclous article to have. I'am sure they could put all this under the main BBC article. Its just a blatant waste of space. delete. Retiono Virginian 11:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main BBC One article. MacGuy^{(contact me)} 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It seems sense to either merge this with the BBC One article and have a small section on it or maybe a gallery of the logos at the bottom of the article. Wrcmills 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (edit conflict) just to note, the "logos" (they are actually idents to give the correct term) were originally on the BBC One article, but were moved eventually to the BBC One section of the BBC television idents article. --tgheretford (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are websites which already have this content, and is merely repetition of this. As stated above some images have no detail so you cant learn anything from the article --PrincessBrat 15:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to BBC television idents. QmunkE 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a useful source of history for the BBC. Tellyaddict 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This page shows BBC One logos and should be part of the BBC One article. Some Person 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is just a copy of how the BBC One section of BBC television idents looked before the massive clean up. No need to redirect the page either, a straightforward delete will suffice here. Wikiwoohoo 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:FAIR and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Sangak 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. - Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be part of the BBC One article and a bit of an abuse of the fair use system, we are trying to build a free encyclopedia and a whole article made up of fair use material is a bit "not good". It might be an idea to redirect to BBC Television idents and keep the main BBC articles free from fair use images, but that's not what this AfD is about. -- Heligo land 00:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main BBC One article, per above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was a for-profit company, we'd be calling it spam. Kla'quot 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.