Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Seven Network slogans

: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 Keep this isn't precedent setting, those arguing for it being kept have demonstarted(inc 5 secondary sources) its not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gnangarra 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

=[[List of Seven Network slogans]]=

:{{la|List of Seven Network slogans}} – (View AfD)(View log)

An unreferenced indiscriminate collection of information. Originally {{tl|prod}}ded [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Seven_Network_slogans&diff=prev&oldid=118285965], and subsequently removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Seven_Network_slogans&curid=8815519&diff=118381612&oldid=118285965] w/o comment. Full disclosure: I am the editor who originally {{tl|prod}}ded the article; along with {{user|Ed g2s}}, I have also repeatedly removed a gallery of fair-use images from the article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Seven_Network_slogans&diff=113441810&oldid=113435105] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Seven_Network_slogans&diff=116641512&oldid=116376587]

  • Comment - this was split from the main article, where it made more sense. Don't just delete it because it was split off - this is happening far too frequently and has got to stop. The gallery of logos was kept from a previous AfD and should not be deleted. JRG 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The title of the page indicates this is a list of slogans. Even if we suppose such a list is encyclopedic, I do not see how a gallery of logos is relevant on a page meant for slogans. The slogans are definitely not "critical commentary" on the logos by any interpretation of the term! Resurgent insurgent 10:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as clearly being indiscriminate collection of information. While it may be true and verifyable from reliable sources the subject is not encyclopediac. Even if this were part of another, keepable, article I would advocate removing it as a pointless list - Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The advertising/namebranding of a major company is a reasonable subject to cover. It could be merged into Seven Network, but as some of the links I provided show, this kind of marketing is quite notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::PS, could somebody explain to me how this is indiscriminate information? It's not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial or any of the other entries described at WP:NOT#IINFO, but rather the actions of a major company, something that is the subject of regular coverage in the media. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::That list in WP:NOT is not intended to be all encompassing. It is meant to provide examples of what is indiscriminate. The seven network does many many many things, much of which is reported on as they are a media company. You could easily make a referenced list of many other things at the network just due to this fact. A list like this clearly fails the notability requirements in that noone outside the seven network or associated companies cares enough to write substantially about it. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::::I did not say that the list at that location is all-encompassing, but the problem is lacking any connection to the criteria on that list, leaves the statement that any particular information qualifies as indiscriminate without substance. Thus I ask people to explain why they believe it is indiscriminate information, not to just declare it such. Without that articulation, it's not exactly much to go on. However, since you do mention outside people writing about it, well, guess what, they do. I already provided links which show that the namebranding/identity building of networks is something that is covered in the news. Not being an Australian, I don't know where to look for sources from that country which would be more likely to cover this company directly, but I accept that in principle such could exist for what seems to be one of the larger Australian broadcasting organizations. FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not encyclopaedic in nature and un-referenced.--Bryson 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as lacking reference and fails to meet my criterion on use as providing a summary of notable people or things we have or should have articles on or useful list. Notable slogans should be noted in the article on the Seven Network although it seems to be the case that Seven changes its slogan every year. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's information already included in the various TV station articles. timgraham 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, a non-encyclopædic collection of tidbits of information. Lankiveil 11:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
  • keep at this stage. This list is an impressive collection of slogans used by a very notable company in Australia. I agree it wouldnt be considered encyclopedic if it was going to be printed on paper, but the lack of sources does not mean that the slogans are disputed, and the list format means it is not OR. Give the contributors time to develop this interesting article that demonstrates branding in practise. In the back of my mind is the fact that this is a prominent piece of a companies branding that is shoved down our throats daily (if we watch that is), and I cant help but think that there is an encyclopaedic piece on the brand that will come of this if we let it be. The outcome could be very similar to our articles on flags of each nation. Note that it would be very easy to add video evidence of these slogans, except that doing so it not as easy as jotting down the details of each slogan, hence the evidence being missing. In a way, the date range provided for each slogan is a citation. The article says go to an archive of the TV programs of this period and you will find that slogan. Also, these slogans are often mentioned in commentaries by other media networks in a derogatory way, and the more notable the slogan, the more often they appear in comedy and in satire. John Vandenberg 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft or include their most recent slogan in the network articles page--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nobody has demonstrated that these slogans been written about by anybody who is independent of the Seven network. Adding video evidence is insufficient because that is not independent coverage - it is OK to validate each individual element with primary source material, but there needs to be secondary source material to show that the whole topic is notable.Garrie 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow me to be the first to demonstrate that: "The One to Watch": [http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s40966.htm] "Love You Brisbane" [http://www.artfiles.com.au/artist/aotm_0402.html]. Misc discussion about slogans [http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s38005.htm], [http://www.smh.com.au/news/TV--Radio/Flailing-Nine-tenses-for-the-big-Packer-boot/2005/02/16/1108500157379.html], [http://www.smh.com.au/news/TV--Radio/Flaw-show/2005/04/23/1114152361794.html]. Slogans are part of our culture. This is no different to the Swoosh having an article. John Vandenberg 05:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge slogans back to Seven Network article, on the condition that some information be added. As for the images, they are an interesting and notable part of the network, and should be kept, though this article is not the place. JRG 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

: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.