Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Channel graphics
- 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. MastCell Talk 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disney Channel graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Original research about a subject which is not encyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, entirely WP:OR, somewhat lacking in context, unsourced, difficult (if not impossible) to verify. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything useful with Disney Channel and delete. Dbromage [Talk] 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very narrow content that seems to be "interesting" perhaps but not notable enough by itself to warrant an article. (why not an article on IBM's logos over the years? Or McDonalds, Chevy, GE.... ) Merge might or might not be appropriate, but info doesn't automatically qualify for a merge so I wouldn't nom for that. Also, the images that 'seem' to be ok with licensing are likely copyright violations. You can't just take a picture of a logo and release that picture into the PD for anyone to use. It is still a TRADEMARK and Disney is famous for aggressively defending their rights, and these seem to violate those rights. Pharmboy 23:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is an article on the Slogan's of McDonald's but it needs a fair bit of work. I could make a case for Chevy being a marketing emblem in itself. But I'd suggest doing a review of their marketing practices instead. And believe it or not, it could be sourced. Their advertising is often in the news. FrozenPurpleCube 00:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dbromage [Talk] 01:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:DISCUSSINGANISSUEBROUGHTUPBYANOTHEREDITORWITHOUTREALLYCARINGABOUTTHEARTICLEITSELF. Sheesh. Forgive me for making a comment that I thought might be informative for them. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be a dick. Dbromage [Talk] 04:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I make the same request of you. I feel your comment was dickish. FrozenPurpleCube 13:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be a dick. Dbromage [Talk] 04:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:DISCUSSINGANISSUEBROUGHTUPBYANOTHEREDITORWITHOUTREALLYCARINGABOUTTHEARTICLEITSELF. Sheesh. Forgive me for making a comment that I thought might be informative for them. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dbromage [Talk] 01:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is an article on the Slogan's of McDonald's but it needs a fair bit of work. I could make a case for Chevy being a marketing emblem in itself. But I'd suggest doing a review of their marketing practices instead. And believe it or not, it could be sourced. Their advertising is often in the news. FrozenPurpleCube 00:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per original research + lack of notability Corpx 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable OR. Shoester 06:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Total fancruft. Dannycali 22:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mickey is a cultural icon and seems to be well written and describing a major part of a major tv channel. Don't quite know how to deal with the COPYVIO issues.Mbisanz 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article isn't about Mickey. Also, an article can be well-written but still be about an unencyclopedic subject. —tregoweth (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking at the IBM] Article. Would anyoen be interested in merging it to the Disney Channel article in that style? Mbisanz 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article isn't about Mickey. Also, an article can be well-written but still be about an unencyclopedic subject. —tregoweth (talk) 15:34, 30 August 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.