Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1

This project page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to deletion.MFD

Maintenance use only: Place either {{mfd}} or {{mfdx|2nd}} on the page nominated for deletion. Then subst {{subst:mfd2|pg=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1|text=...}} ~~~~ to create the discussion subpage. Finally, subst {{subst:mfd3|pg=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1}} into the MfD log. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing
{{subst:MFDWarning|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1}} ~~~~
on their talk page(s).

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 31 March	2 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Sullivan

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

A clear violation of WP:BLP7E. Wiwaxia (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seven lightning strikes is not inherently notable. I don't care what the sources say. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quinoaeater (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quinoaeater (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quinoaeater (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quinoaeater (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quinoaeater (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quinoaeater (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quinoaeater (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wiwaxia. Ottoia (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strike. Non-notable, probably vanity. The Jonas Brothers rock! (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2012 (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.

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. Where to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Anti-violence groups

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

The minimal content of this article doesn't match its title. I'd say that a redlink is better so some future editor can actually write something about LGBT non-violence groups D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the also minimal LGBT rights organization, or maybe LGBT social movements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into LGBT rights organizations, which is the best fit for this marginally notable concept. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what? If you can't answer that, might as well change your vote to redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no content here. Nothing links to this article. Undoubtedly this is a broad topic and a huge amount of content could be put here, but this article would best be created in the future as a fork from another article which has a large "LGBT anti-violence group" section in it. Right now no article has been identified which even has content like this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to LGBT social movements where LGBT rights organization should probably also redirect. There is very little in the way of content and I think that these particular groups are better covered in the larger context of LGBT social movements or the Peace movement rather than in a separate article for the time being. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mars

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

aS tHe truS'tworthY humaN tH^at i aM; i sugGeSt the dEsTRUCtiON oF ThiS reSoUrce iN oRder t_O ~~keEp tHeM fRom fInDing uS~~ conForM wiTh WiKipe_dia RuLes. a tRusTwortHy hUmaN 03:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who put you on the planet? ;) Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 03:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any candy bars on the whole planet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked in the sky and can't see it. No proof it exists. Dough 48 72 03:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mars needs articles, and women, and fat men with beards. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mars does need women, but in particular, moms. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Fourth planet from the ~~Sun~~ star which ~~Earth~~ our planet revolves around" We are not Martians, and since we created this article there is no COI involved. However, we cannot call it Mars, since we don't know if Martians call it as such. Because of this, we have to move it to a different, more neutral title, per WP:NPOV. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fictional fancruft setting of John Carter. —Lowellian (reply) 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mars (chocolate bar). What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 07:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of planets. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Sexual intercourse

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

No independent 3rd party sources can be used to verify that this concept is real. Either someone has participated in this act and is therefore a first party to the act or has not participated in the act and therefore cannot be a realiable source regarding the mechanics/after effects/consequences/social aspects. Hasteur (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have sexual intercourse all the time. I know this great girl named Rosie Palms... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be great that you know this, but Wikipedia depends on Verifiability, Reliable Sources, and Pixie Dust to determine if we should have an article for a topic. Hasteur (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Think of the children!!!!!11!!!11!!!one!!!eleven --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. And I'm a straight guy with no girlfriend, and I don't have sex. So everyone should share my misery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard they keep 'em, girls, I mean, in this place called "outside". I haven't been there yet, but I may go looking for it tomorrow... Oh, wait: I have to work on my article about internet addiction tomorrow. – OhioStandard (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the "greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived" thought it wasn't notable, who am I to argue? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm gay and desire to do this. Dough 48 72 03:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable second-party sources --Cybercobra (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Without this article Wikimedia Commons would have no further raison d'être. Carrite (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennis' second comment; I share the same fate. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not censored. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Acts for deletion/Sexual intercourse. 68.149.174.198 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all keep votes seem to have a COI, as it appears they believe they were produced by an instance of this dubious phenomenon. That flies in the face of dozens of years of scientific research about how the Stork does it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various Buddhist theories about the endless cycle of suffering, then we might achieve Nirvana, and hey! Bob's your uncle/your sister/your stepmother/your goldfish/the clerk at Walmart/your left gonad and so on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of behavior, biology, or other related subjects. Alternatively, redirect to Sexual Healing, because I always get that song title confused with this. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Immoral article about an immoral topic. Wikipedia is not an advocacy site of anti-social activities. SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:54, 1 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence

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

Ironically, this is not coincidental. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not needed. Dough 48 72 03:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coincidentally, I was going to give it a year to prove its worth, but it appears others agree with me, so... CycloneGU (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coin. That's the same thing, isn't it? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just happened across this AfD in a random fashion, now say you what, oh deletionist cabal? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:05, 1 April 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page 2

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 66

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

Decommissioned highway. Highway no longer exists, article shouldn't either. Dough 48 72 03:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—perfectly obvious that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials doesn't consider this roadway worth existing, so it must not be notable. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States thought Osama bin Laden wasn't "worth existing" and now that he don't, He still seems quite notable. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the Osama bin Laden article should be deleted too! He does not deserve an article! Dough 48 72 04:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Get your kicks! Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 03:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But its gone! We don't have articles on nonexistent things! Dough 48 72 03:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decommission per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a standard that decommissioned routes, even minor ones that nobody cares about, still have articles. — P C B 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares about Route 66! If they did, it would still exist rather than I-10, I-15, I-40, I-44, and I-55! Dough 48 72 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We only need articles for existing routes, like County Route 41 (Onondaga County, New York) and County Route 104 (Suffolk County, New York); if Route 66 were anywhere near as notable as those routes, it wouldn't have been decommisioned. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. "It's gone! We don't have articles on non-existent things!" I guess we should remove all dead US presidents from the encyclopedia as well? Who came up with this anyway? Route 66 was a famous road, and remains notable even after decommissioning. I'll bet more Americans have heard of Route 66 than have heard of Chester A. Arthur.

I'd be for that idea. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln don't need articles. Dough 48 72 03:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the fun police. –Fredddie ™ 03:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fun police patrol this route. Dough 48 72 03:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - That's funny that it no longer exists because I'm looking out my front window, it's still there and with traffic. It's a National Icon for Pete's Sake Mlpearc (powwow) 04:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But its not called US 66 anymore! It does not exist and therefore the article should not exist either! Dough 48 72 04:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be the silliest rational I every read. Everything in history doesn't exist anymore either, What do we do with all those pages ? Mlpearc (powwow) 04:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Baby, Delete! Wikipedia is about the present, not the past. Dough 48 72 04:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Funny story, though, instead of getting my kicks, I simply got kicked on that road. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And its time we kick the road off of Wikipedia. Dough 48 72 04:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U.S. Route 666. Didn't you hear? It exists again. It is the road to hell. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:30, 1 April 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Report

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

Serious AFD this time. No sources found for this chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Quick check around turns up nothing I can attribute. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are the sources I found that I brought on WT:CHARTS (including being mentioned on a Colombian newspaper El Tiempo):
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] And here's a recent one

Erick (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather fluent in spanish. Those sources only say "Song X was on National Report" and give no info on the company, nor on the tabulation methods. It's just a tangential namedrop. I did some more searching with the search string you suggested at WT:CHARTS and found only namedrops of the chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Alrighty then, so the chart isn't notable. I'm guessing it doesn't appear to be reliable either? Erick (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their site says absolutely nothing on how they compile their information — do they monitor radio stations, tabulate from playlists, etc.? — which has me rather suspect as to their reliability. Showing one's work is usually a sign of the reliability of a chart; for example, it's well known that Billboard uses Nielsen SoundScan, Mediabase uses a points system, etc. The charts that are determined non notable are usually the ones where we have no idea how they get their numbers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I change my stance to from Neutral to Delete. Erick (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: April fools day is over (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

|View MfD]])

Delete as there are Too many problems with this article

This article is unenclyopedic
Just not notsble
Fails WP:NPOV and WP:GNG
No assertion of notability
This article has a 1/5 rating on trustme.com
The article is still under construction
I don't like it
Who cares about this article
Its useless so might as well delete
Forcing people to do stuff is very harmful
This article is funny obiviously not fit for an unencylopedia
Besides what does this joke even mean
Its just text
This article is just plain rubbish
No references
Nobody works on this article so no will care about it
Only 1k views per 30 days not enough
No one i know has heard of this guideline
This is purley just a crystal ball
Never occured in real life
No body has added sources
Articles like this have probably been deleted in the past as well
Lets get rid of this nonsense^{[April Fools!]} ; User:NotOrrio User talk:NotOrrio - 01:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Send to MfD. Not·Really·Soroka 02:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done NotOrrio (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hisanori Shirasawa

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

This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. 1988 AFC Asian Cup Japan squad was selection of the university student. Hisanori Shirasawa has not yet played for the senior national team. Japan Football (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was originally prodded on the same above grounds. I contested as article clearly stated that player has played three appearances for the Japanese national team. The proposer has now removed that from the infobox whilst nominating this for AFD.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to National-Football-Teams he wasn't capped for Japan. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to RSSSF he played two games for Japan at the 1988 AFC Asian Cup, and as such passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is the AFC cup not a senior international competition as our article on it gives me the impression it is. Because A) that would need changed and B) if it is a senior international tournament then they have played for Japan as the source shows he played in that tournament. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played at senior international level. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AFC Asian Cup is an official FIFA sanctioned senior competition. If countries chose to enter youth/university teams, that is their choice, but any caps those players have at the competition would still count as caps at the senior level, and would therefore warrant notability as per our established guidelines. TonyStarks (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Following clarification that this is a senior cup. Source [8] shows three appearances. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RSSSF reference clearly states he represented Japan against Iran & UAE & therefore passes WP:FOOTBALL ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:03, 3 April 2012 (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.

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 Keep. The consensus below is that his appearances in the 1988 AFC Asian Cup are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Minoguchi

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

This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. 1988 AFC Asian Cup Japan squad was selection of the university student. Yusuke Minoguchi has not yet played for the senior national team. Japan Football (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And at 46 I doubt he ever will! Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to RSSSF he played two games for Japan at the 1988 AFC Asian Cup, and as such passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played at senior international level. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AFC Asian Cup is an official FIFA sanctioned senior competition. If countries chose to enter youth/university teams, that is their choice, but any caps those players have at the competition would still count as caps at the senior level, and would therefore warrant notability as per our established guidelines. TonyStarks (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Senior cup and player made two appearances per [9].Edinburgh Wanderer 22:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RSSSF reference clearly states he represented Japan against Qatar & UAE & therefore passes WP:FOOTBALL ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:07, 3 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyan Cat

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

Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it's nya nya nya, not nyan nyan nyan. - M0rphzone 00:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey there Hannah! ;) Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 02:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:ILIKEIT. Also seems not to fall under WP:Complete bollocks. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Chicken. Chicken, chicken-chicken chicken chicken -- chicken chicken, chicken chicken 95% chicken chicken-chicken chicken, chicken chicken chicken chicken -- chicken {{chicken}} chicken chicken. Chicken, chicken chicken, chicken chicken chicken 1987. Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken-chicken-chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken, chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken. --Dennis The Chicken (Bawk and cluck) 02:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Badger Badger etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't need no stinkin' badgers! Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 02:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. —Lowellian (reply) 05:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because cats are cute. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and banish the nominator because I love this cat. I can't live without you, pussy! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zombie Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 13:56, 1 April 2012 (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.

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 - the consensus is that this person fails to meet notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Scheff

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO due to lack of "published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A Google Books search for "Eleanor Scheff" turns up nothing, as do Google News and Google News archives searches. The article creator also has a conflict of interest as the grandson of the subject; see this link. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't see any sources online, but she's so old that it's likely you'd need to refer to print newspapers/magazines. Not convinced she had a sufficiently major film career. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any independent sources online that prove this individual's existence, let alone notability. If there are print sources, the article's creator should be prepared to state them. --Drm310 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of absence

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

There is an absence of evidence for Evidence of absence. One must prove that there is no evidence of absence of evidence for evidence of absence, which connotes we must have an absence of Evidence of absence. :) -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evident delete No absence is good absence. ;) Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 02:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? –Fredddie ™ 02:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the evident evidence of absence of evidence for the concept of evidence of absence. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 April 2012 (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.

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. The consensus below is clear. However, should he later get playing time in an MLS match or other fully pro league the article can be recreated with sources chowing that. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Riggs

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

PROD contested by User:TonyTheTiger with the explanation "If this guy played in the MLS, he gets a page". However, the subject has not appeared in any MLS matches (or in any fully professional league) and so the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as PROD'er. As stated in the PROD and the nomination, he has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT and he has not received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on checking his MLS profile he has not played in a fully pro league nor does he appear to meet WP:GNG.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:23, 5 April 2012 (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.

The following discussion is an archived April Fool's Day joke. Please laugh. Subsequent comments should not be made. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, ironically. CycloneGU (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

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

Recommend to merge with Coincidence, ironically, as all irony happens by coincidence. CycloneGU (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't it ironic, don't you think? Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 02:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title is a lie. There is no iron in this article at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's like rain on your wedding day. DarkAudit (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the court overturning Proposition 8 allows for rain on wedding days if the spouses are same-sex. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and treat for anemia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we delete this, then we also have to delete Hipster and Alanis Morissette. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can redirect Hipster to Whatever. –Fredddie™ 02:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redirects are mainstream! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this article is like a black fly in your chardonnay. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it ironic that Coincidence is also nominated for deletion? Delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary: irony i) like IronMan, full of iron; ii) said of people who enjoy ironing, or think ironing is important "I had to leave the guy, he was so irony I got carpal tunnel syndrome". CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archived April Fool's Day joke. Please laugh. Subsequent comments should not be made. No further edits should be made to this page.

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. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Choice (political party)

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

Non-notable political party. This local party has only ever received a tiny handful of votes, and has never had any elected candidates or come close to electing any. I can't find any coverage of it in reliable sources beyond the trivial. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, more or less. This is an interesting, well-written and well-sourced article that is neutral in tone. Yet I can't help thinking that another wiki might provide a better home for this piece. As far as I can tell from the article, it doesn't meet the criteria of national scope or impact recommended at WP:ORG. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am writing this in a pub in Croydon, I asked another Croydonian and we are agreed that the party is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments for information: National scope missing maybe, but has contested national elections, albeit not from every seat in the nation but from a group of close constituencies. As for reliable sources, try the party's registration and annual returns as the Electoral Commission (which is as reliable as it gets!) and the Notice of Election etc issued by the Returning Officers for the elections - again, as reliable as it gets. Emeraude (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the information in the article is true; only that the subject of it is notable by Wikipedia's standards. As WP:ORG says, 'An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.' Emphasis on significant coverage: trivial coverage in political databases is not enough. As for 'has contested national elections', its best result in a general election was in Croydon South in 2001, where it got 0.4% of the vote. In local elections, it did once get 453 votes in one ward, but even that amounts to only around 10% of the vote. We have to draw the line somewhere, and a party which has never elected even a single councillor is just not important enough to deserve an article. Robofish (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in British national press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A selective merge to Croydon local elections might be appropriate. Not independently notable. Fences&Windows 18:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it would be generous even to describe them as a micro-party. Per above, I wouldn't mind a very selective merge to/mention on Croydon local elections, but given that the party seems to be outpolled on a semi-regular basis by the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, even that is being generous. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:24, 9 April 2012 (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.

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. The consensus is that this organisation fails to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C3: Center for Conscious Creativity

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

Advertisement. Does not establish notability and has no 3rd party sources. Conflict of interest author contested prod. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many problems as an article, and no sources. But looks like has a chance of being able to meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTABILITY - "Center for Conscious Creativity" and "C3: VisionLAB" gets no gnews hits except for press releases; the high-ranking ghits aren't those that establish notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nat and Nom. Clearly a (poorly written} puff piece. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2012 (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.

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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenpei to barabara shibijin

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

Non-notable Japanese film. It hurts... Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: An AfD could hurt too. Now that it's April 2, I just wanted to ask whether this was another April Fool's AfD, like some of the others Six Sided Pun Vows started on April 1.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this result from Google News in Japanese, but I'm not sure that it actually counts as reliable. There were a lot of promising Japanese refs from Google Books, but they were all either passing mentions, unavailable, or the snippet was so short that I could only guess at the information inside. I am thinking that there must be reviews in Japanese papers and magazines from the 1950s, but I can't verify this without going to the library to check. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that this was NOT a joke nomination. I believe that a possible connection to a 17-year-old video game doesn't exactly make this film notable. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 12:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a film that is rather regularly mentioned in discussions of Japanese horror or schlock cinema, or in histories of Shintoho. Just a quick journey to my bookshelf found an entry on the film in Weisser's Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia: Horror, Fantasy, Science Fiction and the film selected as one of "Japanese Ghost and Horror Film Masterpieces" in Bekkan Taiyō's Nihon horā eiga e no shōtai. It's also covered in Nihon tokusatsu gensō eiga zenshū [10]. Journalism at the time took it up, with Kinema Junpō, the major film magazine, publishing a review in the September 1959 issue (the separate "shōkai" is here). The National Film Center of Japan has even featured it in their retrospectives (see here--note that being "featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema" is one of the conditions of WP:NF). It would not be hard to find more. Michitaro (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also was able to find multiple references to this it is clearly a well known film. The stuff about the game person is just connecting trivia which belongs in the article about the game person, not in the article about the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2012 (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.

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) 10:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Reich

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

This person is not notable; he (she) was newsworthy for a few months for falsely confessing to killing JonBenét Ramsey. That falls way short of notability standards per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Briefly notable for one event, all meaningful coverage is related to the false charges against her. We err in favor of privacy. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly worth the screen display. Mdoc7 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lets be reasonable now. Their are alot of good references. and clearly if he was a non-notable man "on his own merits", then this kind of well referenced article would be able to be done. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to surpass ONEEVENT. Article could use improvement and updating though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with JonBenét Ramsey. Fails guidelines on news (person famous for one thing). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to JonBenét Ramsey - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I'm normally a deletionist, but this feels like a well-sourced and formatted article related to a very newsworthy (well, at least, "popular in the news") case. I see no reason to merge or delete this. ... aa:talk 20:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He also made national news in 2007 when he was arrested for a domestic argument ^[1], in 2008 when he left the country ^[2] in 2010 when he was trying to start a child sex cult ^[3] and when he got a sex change. ^[4] Laladoodle92 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ramsey. - Frankie1969 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

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

Are these joke nominations still funny? Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, they're not. ;)
Wikipedia no longer encourages April Fools jokes as much as it used to. For this reason, I say that we should delete this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, only encourages silly vandalism every time the date rolls around. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the calendar wouldn't be the same without it. 173.70.41.19 (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to March 32. –Fredddie ™ 02:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to April Fools Day. That's all this day is. Dough 48 72 02:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It's otter season, TPH! =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 April. Damn Yankees. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with April 1. -- Trevj (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 9 Nissan, 5772, because the Jews control everything. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This day causes headache to a lot of editors. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:35, 1 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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

Yep, I'm nominating votes for deletion. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm sending your !vote to college. ;) Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I want for April Fools' Day is a vote for Delete! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:58, 1 April 2012 (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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Myers

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

Does not meet notability criteria. I cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was the one who removed the prod, and declined the original speedy. At the time the prod tag was added, the article stated that the individual was an Olympic medalist - this does not seem to be the case, and the prod tag was based on lack of sourcing for that. However, the individual may be notable as a skating coach: she has coached several national champions, and has over 1000 Ghits for "denise myers" + skating (a rough measure, but significant nonetheless). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She gets a few mentions (~30 gnews hits) in what look to me to be local papers, but nothing that I would consider to be significant coverage. Also no evidence that she ever competed at the Olympics. Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My results are identical with Jenks24's - a few mentions in local papers, but nothing significant and nothing that is actually ABOUT her. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mental confusion

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

In an interest of eliminating comfusion from Wikipedia, I feel it is best to start here. :-) -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duh What? Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Delete~~ ~~Keep~~ ~~Delete~~ ~~Keep~~ ~~Delete~~ ~~Keep~~ Delete Carrite (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't understand. —Lowellian (reply) 06:16, 1 April 2012 (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.

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. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think Africa Press

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

Shows no evidence of notability in reliable sources. Article was created by a single-purpose account and lists only the organization's website, minor links to its content, and mirror hostings of the organization's press release as its sources. Khazar2 (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real evidence of notability. It does look like a PR piece, constructed mostly from primary sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is PR. I had a look and wasn't able to find any independent mention of this group. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:28, 9 April 2012 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malena Morgan

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

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear failure to meet relevant notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2012 (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.

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legalise Cannabis Ireland

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

Fails to meet notability criteria, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mentioned in passing in the Irish Times is the most noteworthy coverage. Tagged since 2009 without significant improvement. Sjö (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well that is enough for me, go be creative not destructive Vjiced (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vjiced.Red Hurley (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of stories are mentioned in the Irish Times that aren't necessarily Wikipedia standard. Plenty of other lobby groups exist in Ireland that don't even get a mention here either. You have to draw a line. 79.97.57.207 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Let's have a smoke on that, oops, sorry, not an April Fool's joke, but perfectly timed! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. The only reliable source cited is the The Irish Times, and it's not clear that it is about this spcific organization. Sandstein 08:05, 9 April 2012 (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.

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) 10:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet Kosambi

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

Cannot establish notability as per WP:MUSICBIO - meets none of the parameters listed. WP:SIGCOV - There is no significant coverage of this artist. Cannot add any reliable reference. All Google search results list one event or music download sites --Wikishagnik (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Wikishagnik (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One should be wary of relying on Gnews, Gbooks for articles about non-western subjects as they don't cover much media outside the Western world. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is enough English language coverage of Notable Indian artists, (tv) serials, musicians etc. Their are several respectable newspapers and magazines that have a well defined editorial process that avoids trivial issues and are available online and show up on google. E.g. NDTV Home and Music, CNN - IBN, Times of India etc. try searching for any Indian musician not reported for notability in Google and you will find many more such sources. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find this: Sa Re Ga Ma Pa participants on the Times of India site. So it is only established he participated in the contest. Not enough though so for now Delete. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking for references to prove he was winner of "Marathi Sa Re Ga Ma Pa"? I found one Marathi reference. This English article has a passing mention of his but does say that he was the winner. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately the Marathi article cannot be used as a notability parameter for English Wikipedia. The other article too cannot be used as it does not give any specific dates for concerts. Even if we consider both articles mentioned in this discussion the muscian still does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. --Wikishagnik (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not depend on the language of sources, so a Marathi article is perfectly acceptable as long as it is reliable and independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets the WP:MUSICBIO criteria of "Has won or placed in a major music competition". -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This will be long so have some patience. I have not been able to find any reliable third party reference for this article. Their is a Wikipedia page on Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007 and it does have this artist mentioned but two of the three references mentioned are dead links, the third is a music download site, but I guess that's a separate issue. I did not visit the website of the contest because that would not count as a reliable reference. I have not found significant coverage of the event or this participant yet. The Marathi article cannot be verified by me. --Wikishagnik (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, in case its not clear. The subject was particiapnt in Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007. But he was winner of Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Marathi's season. The Marathi show is based on similar format and arranged by same production house, but only in Marathi language. Similar Bengali show also exists. The winners of these regional shows get/used to get direct enteries in the National i.e. Hindi competition. Marathi and Bengali dont have their own articles yet. However, one season of Marathi which was for children has its own article at Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Marathi L'il Champs. I have voted Keep as he was the winner of marathi show, not participant in Hindi show. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is becoming a question of whether the Marathi show itself is "a major music competition" - if so, as winner, Abhijeet Kosambi qualifies under WP:MUSIC 9. If not, then as mentioned above it becomes a question of whether individual Sa Re Ga Ma Pa contestants on the Hindi show are notable purely on the basis of having participated in that show (as that's the only thing verified by decent sources). Even though it was more than 4 years ago and the subject hasn't done anything of note since, I'd go with a weak keep. Most participants from that 2007 show seem to have articles, and to deny notability on this basis feels like a double standard as regards American Idol and the like. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Marathi" is a "major music competition". Its aired on Zee Marathi. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, not knowing the setup, it looks more like a regional spinoff or a qualifying heat for the national Hindi show than a major music competition in its own right, but just to be clear, I'm arguing it doesn't matter either way because being on Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007 is (barely) enough for me. I'm just saying that if SRGMP Marathi is deemed by consensus to be a major competition, then there'd be a strong supposition of notability per WP:MUSIC point 9 which trumps those arguments. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:27, 2 April 2012 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Almenas

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

I propose this page for deletion for the following reasons: 1. This individual is not internationally known. 2. Lack of hits to the page justifies its futility as a proper Wikipedia article. Oblivionzero (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)— Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot t • c » 17:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find RS's on Google search, news and books. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Keep. There are a lot of Spanish sources, which will take time to go through (I don't speak Spanish) and ensure they are reliable and establish notability, but I think with some work it can pass WP:GNG. ~dee^(talk?) 11:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be kept. So, if I want to make my sister its own Wikipedia article telling her life so far, it's okay? This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The SPA nominator's rationale has nothing to do with our policies and guidelines. WP does not require that a subject should be "internationally known" (that is a very vague concept in itself), nor the Google Hits could be considered a reason to keep or delete an article. Cavarrone (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't speak Spanish either, but if Oblivionzero was talking about the Google News results, then none of them looked like they covered him in any detail. I couldn't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources, and I can't see any reason he would pass any of the other clauses in WP:MUSICBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article doesn't assert notability, regardless of how many times that name shows up in Google News; per the article, this appears to be an obscure musician whose only claim to fame is finishing fifth in a Panamanian unsigned bands competition. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:17, 12 April 2012 (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.

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. v/r - T P 00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Street League

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

Fails WP:GNG and I believe this fails W:NFOOTY as well. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot t • c » 19:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in India as a probable search term/blue link, but I don't see any evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability and the common sounding nature of the term don't make it a good redirect candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. apparent mistake? (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zen

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

This article should not be deleted. :) -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (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.

What is the sound of one Afd closing? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Fertel

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

PROD removed (procedurally?). Concern was: Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR; article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing); page was previously deleted at AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hedging a bet of a G4 on this one. Speedy Delete G4 (repost of previously deleted material); so tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, procedurally, of course. You can't reprod (see red notice) something that has already been to AfD ("An article may be PRODed only once".) Speedy is OK though. Valfontis (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite a G4 in my opinion - similar in some ways but not identical. To be in the "100 best-selling self-help books in Amazon’s “Happiness” category" doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm. Self-published through his own company. Of the references that I can access, only the Baltimore Sun one seems to be anywhere near to an RS, and does give some background to his getting into this field. (The others are by Fertel, or otherwise promotional, or mere mentions/quotes.) Peridon (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BASIC. Lacks depth of coverage in multiple, independent sources that are not blogs or PR blurbs. Most citations are about his program, not about him. I'm wondering if we shouldn't WP:SALT this one (and possibly Marriage Fitness) as well. If he achieves genuine notability the article can be recreated by someone not in his camp. Valfontis (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2012 (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.

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 Speedy keep, per WP:STICK, without prejudice against speedy renomination, erm, a year today. Der yck C. 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

AfDs for this article:

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

All editors have a conflict of interest. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly neutral Keep, with strong admissions of WP:COI. After all, that's where I keep all of my stuff! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm moving to another planet. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep, because Bulldog73 doesn't give a rat's ass - thus invalidating the opening argument. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious conflict of interest because the article was written by residents of the planet. If we can get some aliens to write it… Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Only ali en s have the right to nominate this article for deletion. We humans can't delete this due to pressing COI issues (but then again, why did we create this article anyway?) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable rock, only 1,420,000,000 search results. WikiPuppies! (bark) 02:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — WikiPuppies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Very strong delete, article can never qualify as third party sources can never be found. Obvious conflict of interest as article was written by inhabitants of this planet. Definitely original research. Clearly fails WP: NASTRO as nobody not living on this planet has ever bothered to write about it. Why do we even have articles on this stuff? ChromaNebula (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep, Earth has notable landforms and speicies of animals and strange things called humans, therefore it's notable. Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bring the banhammer down on nom for failing to provide an original prank.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only way this can be NPOV if it was written by aliens. Dough 48 72 02:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Probably notable, but the article's way too long. The whole thing could probably be summed up in two words. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revisit after winter solstice — Presenting a truly NPOV may be difficult or impossible, but this planet's timeline is chiseled in stone for the time being. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fictional setting of many movies. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 07:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written from human supremacist, animal-phobic, planetary jingoistic POV, as if the humans are owner of this planet and because of those humans, this planet is superior to others. Delete this inflammatory propaganda. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator assumes without reason that all editors are from Earth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you from? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are getting too personal. I will reveal that I derive from the same supernova explosion as this local environment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's mostly harmless. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's going to be deleted anyways when it ends on December 21, 2012. --MuZemike 15:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's only a minor location in an infinite universe. 50.104.52.200 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Ridiculous level of Listcruft. The article creators seem to have decided their pet topic should have the sum of all human knowledge plugged in to make it look more impressive, including links to pretty much every other major topic on Wikipedia. Sorry guys, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -Markeer 16:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Destroy to make way for an intergalactic spaceway~~ Delete. In order to meed WP:NPOV, we would have to prove that all the users who contributed to this article are aliens, which I doubt. String Theory¹¹ 16:30, 1 April 2012 (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.

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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The result was speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 17:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's cat

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

Until we examine the article directly after this discussion, this article is conceivably simultaneously notable and not notable. Further study and consensus is required. :) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First Ten Pound Hammer's cat and now this... ;) Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
$\Delta keep\,\Delta delete\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$ per WP:HEISENBERG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, but I had to vote just on general principle. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simultaneously Keep and Delete, as quantum theory is confusing. -- 575 Rev olve 08:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is impossible to ascertain whether it meets WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply hazy, try again. Quantum 8-Ball 13:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Fuzziness If I leave this page and take the article off my watchlist, is the article in a state of both being deleted and kept at the same time; that is, until I check to see if it's still there? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alice
Delete --Bob

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hung (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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 18:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology (rhetoric)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete because the article should be deleted. And if it is deleted, it is no longer on Wikipedia. And it should no longer be on Wikipedia because it needs to be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just too much fun. And because this is just too much fun the article should be deleted. And this article should be deleted because this is just too much fun. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale is wrong, because deletion is not actually deletion. When a Wikipedia page is deleted it remains on Wikipedia; all that happens is that it becomes invisible to those who are not administrators.
Did the nominator intend to nominate oxymoron instead? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your mom is an oxymoron. :-P Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Your sister! — Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I, User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm, a user on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, believe, think, and support the notion, idea, or thought that this article, piece of writing, or passage should be removed, deleted, killed, ended, stopped, taken off, destroyed, obliterated, and removed. Therefore, it will no longer be existent or present on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I, User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm, support this. — P C B 03:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that may be a little redundant and repetitive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For removal's sake, delete this already!!! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article should be kept. And if it is kept, it will remain on Wikipedia. And it should remain on Wikipedia because it needs to be kept. Carrite • ^{(Mock my rationale here)} 01:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm, a user on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, believe, think, and support the notion, idea, or thought that this article, piece of writing, or passage should be removed, deleted, killed, ended, stopped, taken off, destroyed, obliterated, and removed. Therefore, it will no longer be existent or present on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I, User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm, support this. — P C B 07:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm, a user on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, believe, think, and support the notion, idea, or thought that this article, piece of writing, or passage should be removed, deleted, killed, ended, stopped, taken off, destroyed, obliterated, and removed. Therefore, it will no longer be existent or present on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I, User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm, support this. — P C B 07:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, because if we delete articles like this one which are nominated for deletion, then Wikipedia will run out of obscure topics that we need to delete because they are obscure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, burn, stop, put an end, terminate because I want, I desire, I wish. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tautology (rhetoric). *Dan T.* (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate!. The Daleks' reasoning behind exterminating this article is the Daleks' reasoning behind exterminating this article.--Daleks do not need to sign their edits! ^Exterminate_{Report! Report! How's my exterminating? List of victims Exterminate this article!}

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.

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. The consensus below is that this article is an unsalvageably unencyclopedic essay that should be deleted. Sourced information on the topic can be added to The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two, but the consensus is that nothing in the article currently meets the criteria for merging. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our memory and its capacity

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

Unencyclopedic, reads like an essay. Partially duplicates The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two; any new content might be incorporated there. —teb728 t c 01:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a little confusing to read, due to the structure, I suppose, but I'm going to ride with the nom's statement of duplicity and essay factor. Moreover, in reading it, it almost sounds like there was promotion of an expert. But again with the confusing thing. Maybe I need coffee to read it.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with all that has been said above, this is a mess that at this point does not seem rescuable, due to its essay-like topic (title). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The ref titles make it look exactly like 7 +/- 2. They may contain some useful content, but this article is not for an encyclopedia. Chris857 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement is NOT a reason for deletion. If need be starta merge discussion and redirect OR clean it up.Lihaas (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2012 (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.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 18:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards

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

(CTU) lirpa 1 ,30:10 ^{(?won pu rewcs I did tahW)} • remmaH dnuoP neT .eil latot a si tI .sdrawkcab ton si elcitra sihT

eteleD !eheheheheheheheheH Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.sekil retsiL tahw naht ooladniv nekcihc rof epicer retteb a eb ot sdeen ereht esuaceB .eteleD --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
eteleD - mon reP. Dough 48 72 02:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(CTU) 2102 lirpA 1, 15:20 B C P — .nosaer on rof eteleD
Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC) .aidepikiW no eb ton dluohs sihT ?sdrawkcab ton si taht siht no elcitra na evah ew nac woH .eil etelpmoc a sa eteleD[reply]
Delete: let us go forwards instead! —Lowellian (reply) 06:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ɯou ɹəd, dəəʞ – ɟɹədˑʇnɟ ☂ 11:05, 1 April 2012 (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.

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 Keep, non-admin closure. Albacore (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Jimmy Wales

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:COI, WP:NOTE, what more can I say??? Calabe 1992 01:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh wow... hahahahahaha Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious advertising and COI. You'd think after all this time someone would've caught it. I mean, how long has this article been around? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nothing but an attack piece and a cocktail of lies. FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dennis the Menace. We don't need two articles on the same topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Ten Pound Hammer and a good WP:TROUTing to all those who had not noticed the major WP:COI and self promotion here. Mt king ^(edits)
Very strong Keep, we should have an article on every single nobel peace prize winner.<Karlww_{(contribs|talk)} 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible ~~Delete~~ extermination I just don't see how a guy who founded a website can be so notable. There are so many people just like him that doesn't have an article, so why him? Possible COI issues as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about we contact the man himself? Let's see what he thinks about his article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Larry Sanger. I refuse to accept the authority of Albacore. →Σ τ c. 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the AfD is already closed, right? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:58, 1 April 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby football

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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 speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. Sandstein 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools' Day

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable holiday :) - April Fools' Day (AFD) should be deleted at Articles for Deletion (AFD), pun intended. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is just too much fun!! :) Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 00:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NOT, WP:SOAP. Can I tag it to be WP:G5 as well?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for stealing my joke from 3 years ago. Again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Sorry. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - and hoping the AFD or AFD is an AFD joke. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is full of WP:OR, and I suspect it to be a hoax. Damn kids vandalising Wikipedia again, don't they have anything better to do? This article is also racist: "In Poland... Serious activities are usually avoided." As a person of Polish descent, I find this unacceptable; I am always a serious person, and my ancestors died to ensure that we live in a serious world. This article is also promoting fascist, sexist, homophobic and hydrophobic sentiments - I don't know why, but it just is. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*BJAODN It's too funny for Wikipedia. Send it to BJAODN or Uncyclopedia, where it truly belongs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Sadly, BJAODN was removed from the English Wikipedia because "no fun allowed" and "serious business" (apparently it promotes vandalism). It still exists on the Chinese Wikipedia though, and other Wikipedias, which all recognise the qualities and benefits of humour. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just another Hallmark holiday. Dough 48 72 02:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be funny. It's supposed to be neutral. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is offensive to fools.--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
suppression le poisson d'avril is fishy. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Le poisson d'avril? Oui! Je me suis amusé!Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Office removal Because I can Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 13:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This day causes headache to many of our editors. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:31, 1 April 2012 (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.

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. The rough consensus indicates that the new sources provided are insufficient to show notability here. --MuZemike 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eye For Film

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

Mentions of this site in reliable sources are rare and even then the mentions are incredibly trivial. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep - seeking more sources as we speak - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particularly invested in it staying or not, as I note it is borderline, and if it's deleted I expect it would be without prejudice as its notability is pretty clearly on a slow upward slope. But I think its presence is unproblematic - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do I need to explain the meaning of the word "trivial" to anyone? Some of the mentions being added to the article are literally just links to the site that don't even mention the site by name. Wikipedia is not free advertising space.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More added since this comment - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New sources, same poor quality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Small mentions in articles about different topics do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2012 (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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow

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

We have a better article at WP:SNOW →Σ τ c. 00:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hahahahahaha ;) Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 00:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom. This article should be speedily deleted. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (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.

[1] ttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/07/national/main3027514.shtml

[2] ttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423924,00.html

[3] ttp://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37465020/ns/today-today_people/#.T4BZDZgsE20

[4] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/john-mark-karr-gets-sex-c_n_517492.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]