Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Broadcasting Company logos (2nd nomination)

American Broadcasting Company logos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with the NBC logos above, this is a useful addition to the history of a very important American company. Separation from main page helps keep things short enough to be read, presence on Wikipedia adds interest and information. Any sourcing issues seem clearly a "correct-not-kill" matter... Carrite (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you can find sources, please do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've made a modest start at finding some news and book sources for this article, by just from a few things I've found from a couple of Google searches. I've also discovered that there are plenty of contemporary sources, such as the periodicals Broadcasting and Variety, which are not freely available on the web, which cover network advertising campaigns, trademarks, and logos. I am confident that many sources are out there, but I am not confident they will be found by someone just sitting behind a computer screen, at least not without access to Lexis/Nexis and/or various magazine archives. And by the way there were references in the article when it was nominated, even if they were just websites. And information about ABC logos is quite verifiable, at the very least by primary sources such as video recordings and printed advertising materials. DHowell (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find these sources, then source them....all of them. Otherwise, they aren't verfiable or reference and are a page of fan cruft made by a sockpuppet. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd better watch your baseless accusations. Take another look at who created this page and I suggest you either retract your accusation of sockpuppetry or bring forth some evidence, if you have any. DHowell (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The same comment applies to the 9 other slogans listed for WP:AfD on this log WP:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_11. This is WP:POPCULTURE. This type of content is what distinguishes Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias and there is general consensus (I believe) to encourage this type of content. The slogans are verifiable and factual - and of genuine interest (to some). The logo and slogan/ tagline can be verified at the Internet archive. Finding refs and citations for these slogans is something that can be fixed. WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability for this type of material can be verified by non-trivial mentions in secondary sources.AWHS (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]