Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle 7 logo (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circle 7 logo

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

Sources do not mention the logo itself. Article tagged for notability since 2009 with no improvement. The only hits on Google Books were books that reprint Wikipedia articles. No sourcing found that discusses the concept of this logo in general. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is sourced and redirect to
chatter) 05:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By Googling the search phrase "Circle 7 logo ABC" without the quotes, I found significant coverage of the logo in two books, and have added those references to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ABC Owned Television Stations No one has been able to improve this in 4 years, it really doesn't seem like something that deserves its own entry and I'd argue it will even see more views if merged into a less obscure article. TomKoenig (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment TomKoenig, someone did improve the article. Me. Read it and take a look at the article history, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It requires better references still, there are three (two working), the first is an old magazine scan that I can't get much out of, the second is an obituary with a brief mention of it and the third is a dead link. Without the references, it's a merge at best.TomKoenig (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the actual references, TomKoenig, or the non-standard sources section? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 8 November 2013 (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.