Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing logos of Viacom

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing logos of Viacom

Subtrivia of interest only to devoted logospotters. tregoweth 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, precisely. I used ot be a projectionist, but even I found this boring! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Boring? Yes, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it. Movementarian 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Movementarian. --Quarl 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Pboyd04 02:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone else, may not be the best subject in the world, but that's no deletion reason. Besides, if it was going to be unwelcome on Wikipedia, it would have never passed WP:AFC (which it did). Also, why did I expect the AfD tag on the page before entering it? I had a feeling because of similar pages brought here. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Jcuk 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There's a similar article for Screen Gems, and just because there are a lot of people not interested in historical branding of this nature, plenty of people are. Are we short of hard drive space on the Wikimedia servers? Otherwise, I can't figure out why we'd be going out of our way to delete this article. Jkatzen 09:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Viacom. JonMoore 02:05, 3 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.