Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Screen Gems


 * 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 keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing logos of Screen Gems
The article is not of interest to the general Wikipedia population and is irrelevant. Stuff regarding these "logo fetishes" should be deleted as they damage the intregity of Wikipedia. There's a similar article regarding Viacom that apparently was nominated for deletion and kept. Anyone who thinks that these articles are of relevance to this encyclopedia should seriously reconsider being a part of the editing process. --James Stanley Barr 06:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Delete This article and others like it have no place and no appeal to the normal person who visits Wikipedia and damages the intregity of Wikipedia. Add to that, perhaps the amount of visits on the article should be looked at as to where it's even worth putting here. --James Stanley Barr 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If you knew about the nominations for the other "logo" articles and that the consensus is to keep them, why bring up another AFD? Why disparage people who may vote in this AFD in the nomination, especially since we can expect most votes will be "Keep"?  Please be civil.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:53Z 
 * Keep Verifiable and sourced. What is the "general Wikipedia population"? Should we only cater to them? If so, I have some Pokemon articles for you next... (ESkog)(Talk) 07:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. --Terence Ong Talk 08:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep as per.... Jcuk 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Quarl. Englishrose 12:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Has strong potential. Essexmutant 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable and notable.  It could certainly be improved (maybe less text and more images, and then merged into Screen Gems).  I'm offended by the ominator's implication that people with opinions different than his own are somehow not welcome at Wikipedia.  Perhaps you should spend a little time thinking about social norms in a massive community project such as this. -- Plutor 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep though I don't quite understand the attraction, it's definitely of interest to more than a few people. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep verifiable, interesting B.ellis 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Screen Gems or just keep. I agree with Plutor about the form of the nomination.  But is this closing-logo interest a widespread niche of fandom, or just one person's obsession?  Barno 16:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "often cited ... as one of the scariest production logos ever made." No actual citations except one fan "tribute" website.  Eeek.  Barno 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's whole sites and Yahoo! groups devoted to these types of logos - and to making fun of them. They're quite fun, too. :) --CJ Marsicano 07:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You've already voted by way of your nomination. 23skidoo 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and I too take offence at the way the nomination is worded. 23skidoo
 * Strong keep. As I always vote keep for this type of material, I consider this nom to be a personal attack. -- JJay 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. One of the most notable closing logos in television history. (And it never scared me when I was a kid.) --CJ Marsicano 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Preaky 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per just about everyone else. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 06:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all other keeps. Besides, since when were logo articles damaging to the Wikipedia integrity?  There were articles that did such a thing, but this isn't one of them. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it really needs cleaning... -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  20:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments at Articles for deletion/PBS idents. Georgia guy 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. an article does not have to be "of interest to the general Wikipedia population." this article is encyclopedic. Kingturtle 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP an example of how Wikipedia can tell you about something you always wondered and no place else could. --The_stuart 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The information may be of value to someone in the Wikipedia population, but as already noted the article could use some TLC.  Still, badly-written articles aren't enough to warrant killing off.--Mitsukai 16:23, 11 January 2006 (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.