Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Network (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Network (Logos) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gallery of fair use images with little context. Contested prod. MER-C 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOT a collection of image galleries. Might be encyclopedically incorporated into main article, but not in this form. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think that a history of Seven Network logos is important. Mabye a description of why each logo was chosen and why it was replaced would be nice, but regardless it is an important part of Seven Network history, and belongs in Wikipedia. -- Whats new? ^(Talk) 19:32, 14 December 2006 (AEDST)
  • This article is not such a history, and does not contain any of the content that you describe. Uncle G 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Network TEN (Logos) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nine Network (Logos) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added to this nomination due to the exact same concerns. MER-C 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I believe the following articles Seven Network (Logos), Nine Network (Logos) and Network TEN (Logos), are usefull, as they remove the numerous logo galleries that previously cluttered their main articles of Seven Network, Nine Network and Network TEN. These articles are to reduce the clutter caused by logos from Pre-Network years on the networks page. If wanted, I could change the article title to, for example, History of Seven Network Logos, to encourage other wikipedians to add a description of the history of these logos. However, I personally prefer the page the way it is. Stickeylabel 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your preference does not override our Wikipedia:Copyright policy and Wikipedia:Image use policy, or our policy that Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of photographs or media files. Galleries of copyrighted images, such as these, are only permissible as fair use if, for starters, they are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism. If the article contains no actual analysis or criticism, and is simply a bare gallery of images, then it is not permitted. Uncle G 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In all of the above cases, the articles should be moved, as "logos" should not be capitalized in the titles of the articles. -- Kicking222 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given the copyright problems identified by Uncle G. It would also need verifiable information from reliable sources to warrant keeping. Capitalistroadster 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Taking into consideration everyones comments, I agree that it would be best to Delete the following articles Seven Network (Logos), Nine Network (Logos) and Network TEN (Logos). I have now reintergrated the logos back into their respective main network articles, and am going to organise them in an uncluttered arrangement through the use of columns. Thankyou everyone, and again, I am sorry for creating these articles.Stickeylabel 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologise for anything; you haven't done anything wrong. JROBBO 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per What's New, although if Stickeylabel has merged the article back into the Seven Network page, then there's no need to keep this one as well (except that it takes up quite a large amount of room and will make the article too big.) JROBBO 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To reduce the large amount of room that the Pre-Network logos took up, I have moved those logos into their station pages. For example old Seven Melbourne logos are at the HSV-7 article. This removes the non-network logos from the network page, and adds them to their rightful ___location. Also, to ensure quick access to the pre-network logos, I have added links to their articles below the normal network logos. I hope this resolves the issue. Thanks.Stickeylabel 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Stickeylabel's merge. Lankiveil 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - page is now unnecessary, due to the merge. (I especially liked the common sense idea of putting all the historical logos into the appropriate local station articles - nicely done!) Quack 688 06:28, 17 December 2006 (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.