Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Regency logos


 * 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. –  Rob e  rt  01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

New Regency logos
More unencyclopedic logocruft by Logoboy95. Nothing worth keeping or merging here, as this information is already duplicated at New Regency in an edit by the same user. Delete. (Before anyone gets the chance to ask, I did in fact consider co-nominating the latter article with this, as it was created by the same user in the same misguided fashion, but decided to give the cleanup tag a little time). &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Logoboy has created a bunch of nonsense and hoax articles, so I'm suspicious of anything he creates now. In this case it's too trivial to have its own article. 23skidoo 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Mushroom 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added Nelvana Polar Bear since it is a similar article created by the same vandal. Mushroom 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete New Regency logos per nom, but Nelvana Polar Bear is a copyvio from . --Wcquidditch | Talk 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have speedied it since it was created less than 48 hours ago. Mushroom 12:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing to merge. Stifle 23:38, 9 December 2005 (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.