Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Sky television idents

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. Deor (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sky television idents

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

Though the channel might be notable, there is no indication for why we need a unique article for a history of this channel's logos. Article is mostly unsourced, and has at least twice been the playground of sockpuppet operator HoshiNoKaabii2000/Unorginal (specifically Spendcute and SweetToof). Content likely doesn't meet WP:V How does one verify when these changes occurred and why they occurred, as in this sentence: "On 1 September 1993, the new Sky corporate look was introduced to coincide with the launch of Sky Multichannels." I would otherwise recommend merging to Sky's main article, except none of this content is sourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to the main article of the channel due to notability concerns. Logo changes should be easily verifiable at least with primary sources, because that is one front-facing image of the channel. However I don't see how independent reliable sources would devote to the logos themselves any more than passing mentions. Keepers, feel free to produce such sources to prove otherwise. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how we would use primary sources to verify when a logo first appeared. Interestitials? News broadcasts? At least news broadcasts might mention a date, but it seems like it would be WP:OR for us to observe "Ah, on 31 December, the logo was X and on 1 January, the logo changed." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am under the impression that logo changes, being one key identifier of a company, are important enough that companies would do press releases on them. But I could be wrong and is happy to be shown otherwise. And yes I agree that your example would be OR (without third party reliable sources support). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many other sites like TVArk that have this information already. The way we have it isn't very descriptive, unsourced 'type what I see/knew' recaps, and is full of little-interest cruft. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there were logos next to the section I perhaps would've !voted keep .... but there's not as such, Anyway barely sourced and unlikely to be improved... –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were before dickheads deleted them. 90.196.75.203 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were probably deleted for being an unnecessary gallery with no clear academic purpose. Whatever content accompanied them was probably unsourced just as this article is. Instead of calling the deleters "dickheads", you might have a word with the sloppy editors who think unsourced cruft is appropriate for a global encyclopedia. Even if merged, the content is still unsourced and will likely be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge lacks necessary reliable sources, and Sky logos can be covered in the articles about their respective channels.-- danntm ^T _C 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It can be expanded with YouTube and TVARK sources. Merge - If it cannot, so we can at least look back at it in the history. 90.196.75.203 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this IP was recently blocked for disruption, and is likely a sock of HoshiNoKaabii2000/Unorginal or one of the socks who behave similarly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely pointless article. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sky 1. Forgave (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Consensus is not a vote. (Clerk, please note the above account was created today.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am sure we could spend a while looking for sources in the internet. Forgave (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

(Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoshiNoKaabii2000.) Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 26 September 2014 (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.