Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos of the Walt Disney Company

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 of the debate was delete. No fair-use galleries. Period. Go ye forth and find others to vanquish. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of the Walt Disney Company

In a word, logocruft. FuriousFreddy 20:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Cory Doctorow school of logocruft Bwithh 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AFD discussion sort of reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC idents for some reason... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ABC idents should have been deleted on site. Aren't fair-use galleries a big no-no here? --FuriousFreddy 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serious copyright infringement, and Disney is well-known for the zeal with which they file copyright lawsuites. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only of interest to TV logo devotees. —tregoweth (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say this passes notability as WDS has an extremely high iconic status in the United States. Besides Coca-Cola or the Marlboro Man it's hard to think of any company imagery that resonates as well. I'd ordinarily say delete a company logo history, but I'd say this is a special case. However, I agree the copywright issues should be looked into. Markeer 03:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've glanced at the images, all of them offer fair use tags so I don't see the previous voters argument of 'serious copyright infringement' here. Just an FYI Markeer 14:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use does not apply in an image gallery such as this. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's entirely possible I don't understand, but when looking at the tag for [[1]] (for example) I note fair use disclaimers for both a movie screenshot and a low-res company logo. Markeer 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use tag applies to the article about Buena Vista Film Distribution, but that's the limit of fair use. Having it in this article is a copyvio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding of the fair use tag as written is the use of the image on Wikipedia, not for one specific Wikipedia article. In fact that's the language used in the tag. I freely admit I don't know all details of fair use rules, but you'd have to convince me with evidence friend, not simply assertion (heh, tempting to put a citation tag on Zoe's comments...) Markeer 03:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FGS, Keep the page on the Wikipedia! It gives us an interesting history of the company's logo evolution! --Ryanasaurus0077 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You do understand copyright violations, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any logocruft on this page. --Ryanasaurus0077 20:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where did I say logocruft? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Zoe: I am guessing that Ryanasaurus0077's comment was a reply to the original nomination. Ryanasaurus0077: "logocruft" is referring to the entire article, not any single part of it. —tregoweth (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think the page is logocruft. --Ryanasaurus0077 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It is, however, a violation of fair use. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting article on a vital aspect of the branding of one of the world's best loved corporations. In my view, there is also no copyright violation in using reduced versions of the logos in the context of a discussion of their history. Of course, the issue is never crystal clear, as Disney well knows, having been sued repeatedly themselves for various copyright issues [2], [3], [4], etc.--JJay 00:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt about its notability. The content of the article qualifies for a seperate article. --WinHunter ^(talk) 12:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — A decent historical overview of an iconic logo. No copyright issues (see numerous above). --Satori Son 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The primary problem I see here is the use of image galleries. There should be far more text, like National Broadcasting Company logos. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preposterous article.--Runcorn 11:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless it can be proved these images aren't fairuse, then I don't see any reason for the article to be deleted. Alexj2002 14:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified keep - this is an interesting article and definitely encyclopaedic but it is essential that the Admin checks the copyright position before closing. BlueValour 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If this article was actually what its title says it is -- logos of the Walt Disney Company -- I would vote a strong keep (especially if it was as comprehensively annotated as National Broadcasting Company logos). But all this article has is a bunch of Walt Disney Pictures logos. They're not even close to sufficiently different to deserve an article. The actual Company logos would be a much better topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtPowers (talk • contribs)
Strong keep - Screen Gems, Viacom, DiC and Columbia TriStar TV both get logo pages, so Walt Disney should, too! Gabrielkat 04:10, 26 June 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.

Logos of the Walt Disney Company

zproxy.org