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 delete per WP:SNOW. It looks like this was something that this one group came up with one day, so it could have potentially fallen under WP:G11, but this way makes it a bit more permanent. It's extremely unlikely that this specific concept will ever become notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scare factor (ClosingLogos)[edit]

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

Can't find the proper CSD label so bringing it here. Incoherent text about logos and/or the "scare factor", something Google has never heard of. Could be original research, definitely unsourced, and totally unclear. Yintan 09:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep but no evidence to article The Scare Factor should be search from these article Scare Factor clg. ^[1]. Declared dead or else bare link to this article. Sorry abut that. Open Source 2.0 (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Open Source 2.0 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as utterly incomprehensible. Sario528 (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete yes, it's gibberish (with an incomprehensible keep rationale from the article creator, above, as well). Someone possibly the article creator has a wiki page (link below) where they want to get a discussion thread going on how much different logos scare them. I also see from the user's talk page that he or she added a welcome message on the usertalk of a veteran editor. I daresay we're dealing with a mental competence issue here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete gibberish, although scary logos might be notable, this factor isn't. I'm not sure about mental competence but general competence is a serious problem here. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow delete 'Tis the season. Also this is in no way remotely salvageable. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but don't merge Decline afd. 175.158.224.193 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Just to be clear, you said 'keep but don't merge'... and then your only other action was to attempt to redirect it to the top-level article Film. Which makes no sense. Are we dealing with the article creator editing as an IP? I'd be inclined to open an SPI but none of it, none of it makes any sense. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ [1]

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.