Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Four idents

BBC Four idents

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at BBC Three idents (AfD discussion) 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.
- Brownrigg, Mark; Reech, Peter (2019). "'Music is half the picture': The Soundworld of UK Television". In Grainge, Paul (ed.). Ephemeral Media: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to YouTube. Bloomsbury Publishing. doi:10.5040/9781838710354.ch-004. ISBN 9781838715564.
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.
- Fanthome, Christine (December 2007). "Creating an iconic brand – an account of the history, development, context and significance of Channel 4's idents". Journal of Media Practice. 8 (3): 255–271. doi:10.1386/jmpr.8.3.255_1.
- Brownie, Barbara (2013). "Modular construction and anamorphosis in Channel 4 idents: Past and present". Journal of Media Practice. 14 (2): 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.
- Blandford, Steve; McElroy, Ruth. "Promoting Public Service? Branding, Place and BBC Cymru Wales' Idents, Promos and Trailers". Journal of British Cinema and Television. 8 (3): 392–410. doi:10.3366/jbctv.2011.0046. ISSN 1743-4521.
And we only write Wikipedia by watching television, people, not by listening to the radio.
- G., McCusker (1997). "The audio logo: A case study of Radio Scotland's on‐air identity". Journal of Communication Management. 1 (4): 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)[reply]

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)[reply]