Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Four idents

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=BBC Four idents}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=BBC Four idents}})

BBC Four's main page already has a section called "Presentation" which summarises this page well. This page is entirely unnecessary, there are many other websites which will give the reader information about channel idents. This page is convoluted and does not belong on Wikipedia. ComplainingCamel (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• When looking at {{On AFD|BBC Three idents}} I discovered that the article that we (fortunately, see later) do not have, BBC Two idents, has entire book chapters, going through the idents one by one.
  • {{cite book|title=Ephemeral Media: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to YouTube|editor1-first=Paul|editor1-last=Grainge|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|year=2019|isbn=9781838715564|chapter='Music is half the picture': The Soundworld of UK Television|author1-first=Mark|author1-last=Brownrigg|author2-first=Peter|author2-last=Reech|doi=10.5040/9781838710354.ch-004}}
  Moreover: That nomination rationale is a terrible one, not founded in Project:deletion policy. We don't delete things just because the information exists elsewhere. Indeed, we only include things when the information exists elsewhere. Nor do we delete things because they are Project:summary style sub-articles.

  That said, the existence of History of BBC television idents and the fact that no-one has actually gone to look for the outright books on this subject (which have lots on Two, but not Three and Four), and that all three of the places where we cover this are solely based upon WWW sites named "TV ARK" and suchlike, does mean that there's just been uncritical dumping into three separate places in Wikipedia. But it does not take the administrator deletion tool to fix this, just an editor with a bit of willingness to pull the finger out, read the books, and mercilessly merge with the ordinary editing tool.

  There's another channel with a lot written about its idents that I kept turning up because I thought that "channel" might be a good restrictive search term. It turns out not to be.

  • {{cite journal|title=Creating an iconic brand – an account of the history, development, context and significance of Channel 4's idents|date=December 2007|journal=Journal of Media Practice|volume=8|issue=3|pages=255–271|doi=10.1386/jmpr.8.3.255_1|author1-first=Christine|author1-last=Fanthome}}
  • {{cite journal|journal=Journal of Media Practice|volume=14|year=2013|issue=2|title=Modular construction and anamorphosis in Channel 4 idents: Past and present|author1-first=Barbara|author1-last=Brownie|pages=93–109|doi=10.1386/jmpr.14.2.93_1}}
  And in another demonstration of Wikipedia not having the articles that the good sources write about, and having the articles that the good sources do not write about, History of BBC television idents does not have BBC Wales at all.
  • {{cite journal|title=Promoting Public Service? Branding, Place and BBC Cymru Wales' Idents, Promos and Trailers|author1-first=Steve|author1-last=Blandford|author2-first=Ruth|author2-last=McElroy|journal=Journal of British Cinema and Television|volume=8|issue=3|pages=392–410|issn=1743-4521|doi=10.3366/jbctv.2011.0046}}
  And we only write Wikipedia by watching television, people, not by listening to the radio.
  • {{cite journal|author1-first=McCusker|author1-last=G.|year=1997|title=The audio logo: A case study of Radio Scotland's on‐air identity|journal=Journal of Communication Management|volume=1|issue=4|page=362–373|doi=10.1108/eb023439}}
  Yes, I had a what-the-Hell moment and tried Scotland just to see. Not a peep in BBC Radio Scotland. Of course. Three duplicate articles on the unstudied stuff, no content on the studied.

  Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

: Thank you Uncle G, but I cannot for the life of me comprehend your comment, also, you should include, in bold, your preferred outcome. Thanks for your insight. | ComplainingCamel (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep There is no reason for this to be deleted as it is well references and passes any notability issues.(Rillington (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC))

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete considering that the main article does a decent job of summarising this, I don't think it warrants a split here. There's a lot of unsourced information and general WP:CRUFT on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGlow (talk • contribs)

{{clear}}

: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.