Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:31, 1 April 2020

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fedor Belogai

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

No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST, just promo Gruznov (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for entertainers of businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any notability. AbDaryaee (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Khonin

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

No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST, just promo Gruznov (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet special notability guideline for hairstylists. Or any other. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing what makes him notable. Every second hair dresser I visit has some 'diplomas' and industry 'awards'. Nothing here suggests he meets NBIO or such. Ping me if good sources are found and presented here and I can review my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough SIGCOV or sourcing to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alena Raeva

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, article in ru-wiki was deleted. Gruznov (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to satisfy WP:GNG---Richie Campbell (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the winner of one of Miss International franchise beauty contests (therefore meets notability criteria) who has significant coverage in Russian media (see REN and Pyatnitsa on YouTube Russian channels); almost all sources (except one or two) are the secondary ones. Mark Ekimov (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that Russian media is generally considered to be of questionable quality, relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 22:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, winning a beauty competition does not mean automatic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "Face of Beauty" is not so big as to rate automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Borteychuk

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

No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG, just promo Gruznov (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2020 (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 06:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lindsey

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

No evidence of any sources to indicate notability. Inappropriately sourced using just IMDB since 2007. Little chance of improvement in the future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could technically be BLP-prodded, since no sources are present. I did not find any, either. Promotional, to boot. Kleuske (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable actor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A remnant of the old Wikipedia; clearly no other path but deletion. PK650 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify: I'm obviously outvoted here—but I don't think this article is a lost cause. There are a lot of hits for the subject on newspapers.com, and I have found sources which give him some praise for his role in Amongst Friends:

→https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/amongst-friends-103078/

→https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/amongstfriendsrhinson_a0a841.htm

→https://www.newspapers.com/clip/48116327/joseph-lindsey-philadelphia-inquirer/

I'm sure there are more; it's just going to require quite a bit of digging to find them. There are many more hits at the Internet Archive, too: https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22Joseph%20Lindsey%22&sin=TXT&and%5B%5D=subject%3A%22Motion+pictures%22. His role in Caught Up (film) could also go towards WP:NACTOR. In the event of a "delete" (which seems likely), I would suggest "draftifying" as a possible solution, because, as I say, I think there is more to be found on the subject. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Davis

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

A non notable actor, no evidence of substantial secondary sources online. Inappropriately sourced using just IMDB since 2008. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Weak Delete: Just conceivably the subject's roles in Maybe It's Me (TV series) and Odd Man Out (American TV series) pass the WP:NACTOR threshold, although the shows themselves don't seem all that notable—however, finding sources is very difficult. Her name seems to be quite common, which doesn't help matters. This not-very-good source which provides nothing more than a passing mention may be referring to the subject, but I'm not sure: https://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2018/general-hospital-spoilers-gh-star-takes-on-brand-new-role-exciting-project-brings-big-drama/. Hopefully others will find some sources; otherwise I will likely downgrade my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 22:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote above: I've done a more discriminating search at newspapers.com, but all the coverage I've found is pretty minor. I see that no one else has had any luck sources-wise either. The subject only has a weak case for WP:NACTOR, too, as I opined above, so I'm downgrading my vote to "Weak Delete". Dflaw4 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A problem is the subject (a BLP) lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to support a stand alone article. This article joins approximately 1100 others where IMDb is used as a source but is inappropriate. We end up with a pseudo biography (one paragraph) that contains one or more embedded lists of entertainment credits. Wikipedia is not a listing of all things entertainment nor an advertising venue for IMDb. Otr500 (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Hoover

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

No evidence of notability and zero sources (other than IMDB) in the article since 2008. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though the article doesn't say so, the subject's more recent credits are for writing rather than acting. There are a number of Deadline Hollywood articles that mention her in that capacity (e.g., https://deadline.com/2016/10/jj-totah-star-nbc-comedy-adam-naomi-scott-1201844962/), so I would encourage voters take this into consideration when evaluating her notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. A search produced nothing substantial and added Deadline source has some specific to subject but not significant coverage. Could not find anything substantial providing nothing more than a couple of sentences of a pseudo biography.
- Comments: Source and article review

Alien Arsenal (1999): Film review with name drop of Danielle Hoover (Baxter)
BFI name drop, place of birth.
External links:
IMDb, filmography with date and place of birth. Not an acceptable source.
BW names subject as "screenwriter, actor, and co-producer"
Encyclopedia of Unaired Television Pilots, 1945-2018: Movie concept Otr500 (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Otr500, there is another review for Alien Arsenal, which provides slightly more than a mere mention, at a site called Efilmcritic.com: https://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=5056. I don't know if there is a consensus regarding this site's reliability, though—do you? Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The review seems legit but you can check this page out, concerning eligibility to be a critic for that company, and it might give some insight as to why I would not rate the reliability very high. It may not be required but I would hold more regard to a critic that was associated with the National Society of Film Critics, New York Film Critics Circle, (See Category:American film critics associations) or other more "official" membership. In Australia there is the Film Critics Circle of Australia (FCCA), ABC Radio National, Australian Film Critics Association (AFCA), also International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI), and many others that would be more "prestigious". This is just my opinion but has logic if notability is questioned. Otr500 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Otr500. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Otr500's forensics per above. Subject failrs WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either an actress or screenwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2020 (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 06:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race Owen

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

No evidence of notability and zero sources (other than IMDB) since 2008. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I haven't found any reliable sources that would go towards WP:GNG. The subject has only had one significant role, in American Heiress, so he falls a little shy of WP:NACTOR. He has won three awards, according to IMDb, but I'm not sure that they would suffice to meet WP:ANYBIO. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles with this sub-standard of sourcing should not stand for 13 hours let alone 13 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, have you any view regarding the awards the subject has won? Dflaw4 (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone adds independent 3rd party sourcing to the article supporting that he won the awards there is no reason to even consider them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, hypothetically speaking, what are your thoughts on the awards themselves, John Pack Lambert? Dflaw4 (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said we need 3rd party reliable sources supporting their relevance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, forget that I asked, John Pack Lambert. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Thomas (TV host)

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

A non notable presenter with no evidence of secondary sources online. Inappropriately sourced using just IMDB since 2008, with little chance of the article being improved. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough sources to meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't have a BLP sourced to IMDB; can't find anything better. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 7 April 2020 (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 06:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kora Entertainment

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

Created by a user that claims to be Kent-P (according to this article, the label's CEO). I've checked for significant coverage and there doesn't seem to be any. Nominating due to lack of notability. GoodCrossing (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GoodCrossing (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GoodCrossing (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GoodCrossing (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page (created by same user) because of similar lack of notability:

Delete both per nom. The references cited in both articles are not reliable and do not discuss the record labels. A Google search of both labels do not show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a directory listing service. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:22, 9 April 2020 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. G. Whitfield

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

Fails WP:Notability (music) and doing a WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything except trivial coverage. Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable due to his inclusion in the hall of fame mentioned on the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are either of those notable accomplishments though? It doesn't seem like either fit the criteria for notability of winning a major musical award in WP:Notability (music). Christian artists win the Grammys and Juno awards all the time, both of which would count for notability. I don't think his inclusion in these "halls of fame" do though. They don't even meet Wikipedia's notability standards. You can't say someone is notable for being in a hall of fame, when the hall of fame their in isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hall of Fame doesn't necessarily have to be notable in order for coverage of someone being inducted to confer notability on the inductee.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 22:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether the hall of fame is notable has not been determined yet, but I expect it will be in the coming days. (Note to closer: See if the hall of fame article is closed or not.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source already cited, a quick g-hits search (which is supposed to be done as part of WP:BEFORE) brought up this and this. He's notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC
Comment This source [1] (already linked above) is most likely user generated and not sufficient as independent secondary coverage. However, this source [2] (already linked above) appears to be RS, at least at first glance. Are there any sources to indicate the subject has been inducted into the hall of fame? This source [3] in the Wikipedia article does not appear to cover Whitfield. I did a search with the source and found nothing so far. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first link in the second reference does not work (at least not for me). However, the second link in the second reference produced this [4]. This should be the active link in the references section. Based on this source it seems his contribution to this music genre' had an impact. Then I found this on the second link of the first reference [5]. Based on this source, it again seems his contribution to the music genre had an impact. Also, the links need to be fixed in this Wikipedia article. And the encyclopedia reference needs to be added. After that if someone wants to add the user generated link, then I don't think it would be a problem. So, after all this I am Ivoting Keep based on the three references I mentioned - besides the user-generated link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding AllMusic, artist bios are written by staff or guest contributors. They aren't user-generated. In this case, Charlotte Dillon was the author.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guest contributors would seem to indicate (to me) it could be user generated. And I don't know what kind of vetting the staff is subjected to regarding accuracy. I guess it can be said there is a divided opinion at this AfD. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are guest contributors, that's worlds different from user-generated. There is an editorial staff. Read the article on AllMusic, it is one of the most prolifically used music sources, on the level of Billboard. Consensus has long been that it is reliable, and it's listed as a reliable source on the Albums WikiProject (which is a reflection of consensus). Sorry, but you seem to have very little knowledge of what you're talking about. I'm fine with divided opinion, but this division appears to be because of misinformation. If you want to learn what the consensus about AllMusic is, you can see here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 52#AllMusic, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 54#"Sources to avoid" section, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/Archive 5#Allmusic not a reliable source for discographical info?, Talk:AllMusic. The TL;DR of those is that AllMusic is about as reliable as a source can be when it comes to material written by the contributors, but the sidebar info, which isn't attributable to the site staff, and the album credits and discography info isn't always accurate (which is an issue across the board with online music databases).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:. OK. I stand corrected. Thanks very much for taking the time. You are correct that I didn't know AllMusic is held in high regard on Wikipedia. You're correct that I was at the least misinformed. I'm interested in reading the ~~articles~~ discussions to which you have linked. Thanks again. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Sure, no problem. Glad that this was cleared up.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:41, 21 April 2020 (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 06:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glengarry Pipe Band

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

Non-notable pipe band - no signs of significant secondary coverage. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (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 06:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherneck Pipes & Drums

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

Non-notable pipe band - can't find any signs of significant secondary coverage. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After extensive searches, I do not find the type of sources that establish notability under our guidelines. The organization has appeared in many prestigious and notable events but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Articles in RS usually are little more than passing mentions of the sort: "Marching bands that are expected to be present [at X parade] include..." Actual discussion of the organization appears to be limited to message boards and pipe band fan communities. No reasonable redirect or merge target appears to be available. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 9 April 2020 (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 06:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erianto

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

Searching in English, I cannot find WP:SIGCOV. Did not look at Indonesian sources. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does no pass notability criteria for artists or GNG. Netherzone (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does this article from The Jakarta Post establish notability? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that, however, one review in ten years is not significant coverage. This sentence "But perhaps more creativity needs to be demonstrated when having another one-man show in the future." made me wonder if they had any other solo shows. Notability is established by verifiable significant coverage in several sources, and making a contribution to the culture via museum collections, etc. I don't think the review is enough. The criteria for artist's notability is WP:ARTIST and there is nothing at this time that indicates that has been met. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2020 (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 redirect to Blind Willie Johnson. Merger from history is possible. Sandstein 06:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is Coming Soon

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

None notable song. It fails WP:Notability (music) on ever count. As an alternative to deletion, it could possibly be merged into Blind Willie Johnson, Although it's questionable if it's notable enough even for that. Adamant1 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jesus has officially came again on 39 March 2020 25:98 UTC. Pianostar9 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in the last decade by NPR[6], the New Yorker,[7], and Discover magazine.[8]. Question for Adamant1, and anyone in cooperation with Adamant1: Have you heard of people talking or writing about this recording due to it relating to the pandemic? I've noticed other 1918 flu related historical topics resurfacing, and am wondering if you have come across people talking about it for this reason.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One, I don't think it's fair to say people who vote similar to each other are in cooperation with each other. Second, my only judgement (and I believe the judgement of others also) is purely based on notability through reliable in-depth sourcing. That's it. The existence of peripherally related current events or similar things like that don't factor into it. We don't keep every article about planes when a major airliner goes down etc etc. Nor should we. Outside of that, personally I haven't noticed any topics about the flu epidemic resurfacing on here, but then I wasn't really paying attention to that when I was looking at the article and deciding to do the AfD. I'm sure more people are looking it up though since it and Covid-19 are semi-related. That's not how I came across the article though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blind Willie Johnson. The NPR source does not actually talk about the song, it just puts in it a references section. The other two do mention the song, but the Discover magazine source does not provide significant coverage, being just one actual sentence of coverage and the rest being copy-pasted song lyrics. This leaves The New Yorker, which does provide significant coverage, but it is only one source, not enough to establish notability. Also per NSONG: "A standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blind Willie Johnson per Devonian Wombat. The song fails WP:NSONG and since there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources, a separate article isn't warranted. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blind Willie Johnson: Per Devonian Wombat. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:27, 7 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13th GMA Dove Awards

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

Non-notable awards ceremony. It's had a sourcing banner on it since 2010 that never got dealt with and a WP:BEFORE search fails to come up with anything. Maybe it could be merged into GMA Dove Award, but there isn't anything to merge. Since the article is essentially devoid of content. Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the ceremony here is not related to the use references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Walter Görlitz:, What's the notability related to then? There isn't currently any solid guidelines about the notability of ceremonies or awards from my understanding. So it goes to the WP:GNG guidelines. Which requires the use of references. Otherwise, any ceremony or award would be notable by default, no matter how mundane it might be. I'm not even saying the ceremony itself isn't notability anyway, I'm just saying this particular article about it isn't. Those are two different things. If there's going to be a spin off article of a subject it has to be justified. An essentially blank page isn't. Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the BEFORE you did, was that through print publications from 1982, because that's where you're going to find the publicity for this particular event? All detailed at Wikipedia:Notability (events). It's disingenuous of you to suggest anything else was thorough. I'm expecting a thorough review of CCM Magazine back-issues, Campus Life, Cornerstone and other publications that would have covered this. I suspect you did a simple Google search. As for what's the notability, it was in the press at the time but I don't have access to the sources. The awards that were distributed that night are are detailed at the Dove Awards past winners page and this page, the latter is not a RS though, but suspect it could be used for the nominations alone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's disingenuous is voting keep because supposedly the existence of sources don't matter to notability, and then berating another user about how thoroughly they searched for sources you claim aren't important. Do the existence of sources matter or don't they? Also, plenty of articles about historical events (if that's your notability claim) are well sourced from Google searches, because the topics are actually notable. Not that I'm saying that's all I did. I sure as hell didn't sift through a bunch of 80s high-school teen mags (that probably don't cover the subject in-depth anyway) before doing the AfD. Your rant about it is a good example of WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST though. Finally, neither of your sources work for establishing notability. Maybe go find some that do by sifting thorough old teen mags or something. I don't really care. It's at least better then just going off, hand-waving, or attacking other users. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only citation is a non-independent WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. A Google search turned up two newspaper clippings, 1 and 2 from The Tennessean, the first of which is effectively an advertisement. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Walter Gorlitz, who seems to be the only one who knows what they are doing here. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What it is that he's doing exactly? It seems to me the main reason he voted keep is a personal grudge. He didn't even bother to provide the magazine sources to establish notability that he claims exist. Just making vague assertions of potential notability isn't enough. So I'd love to know what it is that both of you know that makes this notable that we don't. Your suppose to say why you think something is notable or not in a vote anyway, and not just defer to another user. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A personal grudge? Could it be that the article is on my watchlist and I know where to look for sources but have no access to those print editions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Id go for that if it wasnt for your prior actions and the way you treated me in relation to other edits done to Christian articles. Although that aside, personally I dont think keep arguements like "hey we should keep this because I seem to remember the topic being discussed somewhere. Although I cant provide a source or even tell you exactly where/when it was" kind of weak. Any AfD could be kept on that standard. Your free to disagree though. Obviously everyone judges notability different. For some hunches of notability are fine, for others like me, not so much. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion doesn't seem done, and consensus hasn't been reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one primary source in the external links. Only one independent secondary source has been presented in this AfD [9]. However this seems to be a routine announcement, which is akin to public relations. It is not significant coverage. This is not enough to demonstrate notability. Please see WP:ORGDEPTH. Multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage are needed. Saying there might be sources somewhere or there should be sources somewhere does not demonstrate notability. Fails GNG, NMEDIA, ORG.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Schwed, Mark (1982-03-04). "Sandi Patti, a former music student who was virtually..." United Press International. Archived from the original on 2020-04-21. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
Carter, Walter (1982-03-04). "Sandi Patti Wins Top Dove—Gospel Artist of Year". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2020-04-21. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
Bohler, Jennifer (1982-03-13). "Patti Captures Top Dove Award". Cashbox. Vol. 43. pp. 8, 27. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
Morris, Edward (1982-03-13). "Patti Takes Top Honors At Dove Awards Ceremony". Billboard. Vol. 94, no. 10. p. 53. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
Garrison, Becky (2010) [2005]. "Gospel Music Association". In McNeil, W. K. (ed.). Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music. New York: Routledge. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-415-94179-2. Retrieved 2020-04-21.

Sources with quotes

Schwed, Mark (1982-03-04). "Sandi Patti, a former music student who was virtually..." United Press International. Archived from the original on 2020-04-21. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
The article notes:
Sandi Patti, a former music student who was virtually unknown a year ago, was named gospel music's artist of the year and top female vocalist at the 13th annual Dove Awards.
Dottie Rambo and the Imperials won two Dove statues -- gospel music's equivalent to the Grammy Awards -- Wednesday. The winners were selected by the Gospel Music Association's 3,000 members.
...
Russ Taff was named top male vocalist for the second year in a row and B.J. Thomas won a Dove Award for gospel album of the year by a secular artist for his 'Amazing Grace' album.
...
The 2 -hour ceremony at Opryland Hotel was sprinkled with references to religion and God, but some poked fun at the gospel-oriented crowd.
Grady Nutt, a regular on the television show 'Hee Haw,' brought a huge roar of laughter from the crowd.
'If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I'm in trouble,' Nutt said. 'I know he has a sense of humor because he invented Baptists.'
Carter, Walter (1982-03-04). "Sandi Patti Wins Top Dove—Gospel Artist of Year". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2020-04-21. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
The article notes:
Sandi Patti, Dottie Rambo and the Imperials each won two Dove Awards at last night's 13th annual presentation, with Patti taking top honors as gospel music's artist of the year.
... she whoed the crowd of 800 last night why she has become so popular so fast.
...
Hee Haw regular Grady Nutt emceed the show and provided a constant flow of humor that other award shows would envy.
"We all know this is just an uptown version of all day singing and dinner on the ground," Nutt said at the beginning of the night. Most of his monologues continued in that vein, examining the gospel music's roots—the primary one being out on Route 2, he said.
...
Wendy Bagwell also contributed some humor with a comic monologue, cut short he said because he and his group had to get down to Opp, Ala., where they were playing a filling station opening this morning.
Bohler, Jennifer (1982-03-13). "Patti Captures Top Dove Award". Cashbox. Vol. 43. pp. 8, 27. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
The article notes:
Sandi Patti, the self-proclaimed new kid on the block, was awarded the top Gospel Music Assn. (GMA) honor last week when she was named Artist of the Year during the 13th annual Dove Awards. Patti also took Female Vocalist of the Year honors during the two-and-a-half hour awards program at the Opryland Hotel here.
The Imperials were also honored with two awards: Gospel Group of the Year and Contemporary Gospel Album of the Year for its "Priority" album, produced by Michael Omartian.
The well-produced, smooth flowing awards program, hosted by humorist Grady Nutt, whose downhome sense of humor was one of the highlights of the evening, featured 18 awards presented and inductions into the Gospel Hall of Fame in two different categories, plus a special slate of inductees. In the living category, Thomas A. Dorsey joined 11 other members in the Hall of Fame, while in the Deceased category, John T. Benson, Sr. was inducted. This year, for the first time in 10 years, there was also a special slate of inductees, which included Charles Gabriel, Haldor Lillenas, B.B. McKinney, Lowell Mason and John Newton.
Morris, Edward (1982-03-13). "Patti Takes Top Honors At Dove Awards Ceremony". Billboard. Vol. 94, no. 10. p. 53. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
The article notes:
Impact Records artist Sandi Patti, a relative newcomer to the gospel music field, won the gospel artist of the year and the female vocalist of the year honors at the 13th annual Dove Awards ceremony held here Wednesday (3). The event capped the Gospel Music Assn.'s Gospel Music Week activities.
Patti gained her first national visibility last year touring with the Bill Gaither Trio and through her initial album for Impact, "Love Overflowing." In taking the gospel artist prize, she edged out veterans Cynthia Clawson, Andrae Crouch, Dallas Holm and the Imperials. The other Dove honors and their winners were: [long list of winners]
Garrison, Becky (2010) [2005]. "Gospel Music Association". In McNeil, W. K. (ed.). Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music. New York: Routledge. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-415-94179-2. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
The book notes:
In March 1982, Thomas A. Dorsey became the first black elected to the GMA Hall of Fame.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the 13th GMA Dove Awards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the present article is merely a skeleton saying nothing much, the topic itself is notable. We have trouble finding online sources because the Internet was so young back then! But magazines covered the topic as found by Cunard. The content in them is substantial and independent. So WP:GNG is met. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2020 (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) ——SN 54129 17:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14th GMA Dove Awards

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

Non-notable awards ceremony. It's had a sourcing banner on it since 2010 that never got dealt with and a WP:BEFORE search fails to come up with anything. Maybe it could be merged into GMA Dove Award, but it's questionable if it would be worth it or if that article is even notable enough itself to warrant it. Adamant1 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the ceremony here is not related to the use references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's it related to then? There's no guideline about the notability of awards or ceremonies except for the GNG. Which requires the use of references. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG does not require the use of references (it's a guideline, it can't require anything), it suggests that an article is likely to be notable if sufficient reliable source coverage exists, which is highly likely in the case of these awards. --Michig (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable." verifiability does require sources. Anyway, I meant "require" in the sense of it being a generally accepted rule, that most people follow and applies in most cases. Not in a fundamentalist sense, that doesn't account for common sense. This isn't the place to debate what's an edge case, where "common sense" would over ride WP:GNG, WP:SBST, or whatever guideline though. Let alone is it the place to re-relitigate the philosophical underpinnings of notability, what an "article" is, or the purposes of Wikipedia more generally. If Walter Görlitz want's to wax poetic about any of those things more power to him, he's free to do so in the appropriate mediums. There's nothing inherently special about awards though. The vast majority of them aren't worth mentioning anywhere, let alone in Wikipedia. Even the awards main article has questionable notability and most of the sub articles about it either don't have sources or there's just a few un-reliable ones. Even for more recent award ceremonies. Like last years 50th GMA Dove Awards. Which only has one none primary source. As an "awards topic" it's not even comparable in notability to a smaller regional award like the Juno Awards. Which has great sourcing for both it's main article and the "Juno Awards of" sub articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability means that sources exist to allow facts to be checked, not that they are cited in the article. --Michig (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one source found after just a few seconds Googling: [10]. I don't have access to a US newspaper archive, but I suspect that more coverage wouldn't be hard to find for anyone that did. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but notability requires in-depth none trivial coverage. Which isn't ascertained through articles just being "out there" or "likely" existing. So, your really splitting hairs. On your source, it's trivial, non in-depth coverage. The article isn't even about the awards. While I'd have zero problem with certain superficial facts from it being inserted into the article since that's all there is, it does nothing to establish notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not splitting hairs. You said you found nothing, I found an article about this awards ceremony in a matter of seconds, and you didn't appear to understand the distinction between sources existing and sources being cited in an article. Further coverage of this awards event found fairly easily from a Google search: [11], [12], [13], [14]. --Michig (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per multiple newspaper articles about this awards ceremony identified above. --Michig (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. You just dont get the purpose of AfD or what a keep vote should be based on. That's fine though. Ultimately I could give a crap less. If the only thing that comes out of this is a bunch of sources being added to the article, even none notable trivial ones that where ref bombed by people who dont understand the process and dont listen when told how it works, that's a still a win in my book. Its not like there can't or won't be a AfD 2.0 at some point either. Which can happen when you ref bomb bad sources to fake notability just to get your way. Altough, two keep votes at this point by people who either clearly have an agenda or are intentionally ignorant of the process really means nothing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Btw, even if it does slightly pass notability, what issue would you have with merging it to the main article as an alternative to keeping it? If it is notable it still doesnt warrant an individual article IMO because it will just be stub/list like the other articles in the same vain. So what would be the problem with merging? The question goes for Walter also. Personally, I'm not a fan of having a bunch of questionably sourced perma stubs if it can be avoided and I'm pretty sure Wikipedia more widely isnt either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Please have a read of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Maybe also have a read of Wikipedia:Notability. Thanks. And don't forget to sign your posts. --Michig (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a very similar AfD Walter said me doing it was disingenuous and claimed I only edit Christian articles because I disdain Christians. He has a history of treating me in similar ways. My commented was pointed at him and in reference to those things. While I generally respect users and abide by the no attacking rule, I'm not going to in this particular case with him. As he has repeatedly disregarded both to me and I strongly believe in the golden rule. Plus, he does have agenda. The truth is not harrasement. Calling someones action disingenuous and motivated by disdain is. I'll refrain from speaking the truth about Walter though because you requested. Adamant1 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Michig I know Wikipedia:Notability quit well, thanks. It seems like you don't though. Since none of your sources seem to talk about the ceremony in the in-depth manor required by it. An article about Amy Grant wining it is about Amy Grant, not the ceremony itself, and notability isn't inherited as I'm sure you know. So where is an in-depth article about the actual subject? If your going to tell other people read something, you should really follow it. I still so no in-depth coverage of the topic even with your sources and it doesn't take reading the notability guidelines to come that conclusion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Michig above which show a pass of WP:GNG. Also if all the award pages were merged into the main article it would be too large for loading quicly over slow internet connections as per WP:Notpaper, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

I think your reason for not wanting to do a merge is more about editing issues then the actual benefits of doing so. Unfortunately a good portion of the GMA Dove Award article is longer then it needs to be due to being in list form and includes things that don't really need to be listed. It wouldn't really be an issue if the lists where rewritten as prose and the un-notable parts where taken out of it, but that doesn't have anything to do with if the subject here is notable enough to warrant it's own article. Which is the point in AfDs. I appreciate you at least addressing the option though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Whisky Barrel

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

This article fails WP:NCORP Angryskies (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or searches of significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would concur with the above comments that there is no sign of the independent coverage that would be needed to suggest there is sufficient notability to justify an article. Dunarc (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demijohn Limited

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

This article fails WP:NCORP. Angryskies (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 1 April 2020 (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/2020 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three RS referenced in the article (Sunday Herald, the Scotsman, and The Times) all failed verification and can't be counted on. A search on Nexis confirmed the lack of existence of these articles but disclosed about 20 pieces in various business pages of English and Scottish newspapers. Unfortunately, the longest of these was less than 200 words, making the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG doubtful. The majority of these were also WP:MILL coverage of "local business owner sponsors event" type stories. No evidence is apparent of GNG or NCORP compliance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All references are in passing/not reliable/broken. The text does not suggest this tiny business could meet WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others commenting have said there seems to be a lack of the coverage that would be needed to meet notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2020 (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. Google hits are not a valid arguments for inclusion, only reliable sources are. Sandstein 06:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Music Association

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

The articles subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines in WP:NCORP. One of the sources is a dead link, one doesn't have anything to do with it, and the referenced book, which I have a copy of, doesn't mention them (Unless my pdf application's search function is broken). Outside of those, doing a WP:BEFORE only turns up trivial coverage and passing mentions. None of which meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG standards of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Adamant1 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dead links are not a reason to ignore a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I just did a search of new for Gospel Music Association and found hundreds of entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't ignore the dead links, but them being dead does factor into if there is currently existing reliable in-depth coverage of the company or not. Which is what AfDs are about. On the hundreds of entries you found, great for you. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. I said sources came up when I looked, just that they where trivial coverage or weren't otherwise reliable. Notability goes beyond just the existence of sources. If you have sources that meet WP:NCORP's notability standards, 100% contribute them. Without them though, this company isn't notable. Let alone should it be speedy kept just because of some Google hits. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search of the organization doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable sources. As a matter of fact, most of the sources about the organization available online are either primary or unreliable. News stories about Kirk Franklin boycotting the organization is not enough to justify a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Also, can we ban people from !voting "Speedy" anything? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 9 April 2020 (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. There is consensus that GNG is very likely to be met. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Axinia

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

I don't see the evidence that this player passes WP:NFOOTBALL, Romanian league back then wasn't a fully professional league as far as I am aware. Also the lack of citation doesn't help, doesn't appear to qualify under WP:GNG either. Govvy (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the assertion that the Liga I was not fully pro in the late 80s/early 90s when this player was active is based on nothing as far as I can see. As such it currently stands that this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question I couldn't see any other sources to show he actually played in Liga I, also my firewall scanner blocks statisticsfootball.com due to security risks from that website so I am unable to view it. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GS. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article about footballer who made over 50 appearances in the fully-pro Romanian top division. However, the only in-depth online coverage I can find is the same sources used as references in the article (from a regional newspaper for Neamț County). I think it's probably enough to satisfy the GNG, but it's close. Jogurney (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 70+ appearances for CSM Ceahlăul Piatra Neamț in top tier during Communist Era? If that doesn't meet NFootball, we need to change NFootball. Surely would have had media coverage during that historic era! Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2020 (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 06:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JG (rapper)

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

Non-notable artist. JTtheOG (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the usual mix of WP:NARTIST fails. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 9 April 2020 (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 redirect to Demographics of Turkey. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Turkey

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

Too small diaspora, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are several articles which have smaller/similar diasporas and yet are on the wiki. Pakistanis in Thailand, Pakistanis in Japan. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 06:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abishe (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Demographics of Turkey. There is no need for an article on this subject Lightburst (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Demographics of Turkey. It seems like a good middle ground. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Demographics of Turkey: per policy. Regarding the arguments made here, the "Weak keep" is an WP:OSE and thus an argument to avoid, as is one of the deletes: for "Not a notable topic", see WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. The nom, while weak, is bald argument, and so a per nom is as also. ——SN 54129 17:16, 9 April 2020 (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. Bishonen | tålk 02:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mototaka Nakamura

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

This is a WP:FRINGEBLP of a climate change denier who is so obscure as to really not be identified by the appropriate number of third-party sources. The primary author of this article claims that WP:PROF is satisfied because some of his papers have lots of citations, but there are citogenesis issues for some of these papers within the closed-shop climate change denial community, and, frankly, hundreds of citations over the course of decades is not a particularly high. I just do not see enough evidence that this person is notable and the other WP:BIO indicators seem to be lacking as well. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable secondary sources mention him. I have dug around on JSTOR and Google Books. The only sources that mention him are his own works. Most of the sources on the article are his own publications. WP:RS are seriously lacking. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, the only standard of notability this page might reach is WP:NACADEMIC criteria number one, based on two papers that may demonstrate a "significant impact" of this academic's research. Based on Google Scholar hits (which is not the preferred method, but is what I have available), this academic has one solo-authored paper with ~250 citations and first authorship on a paper with ~150 citations. As a non-expert in his field, I do not know whether this is sufficient for significance. All his other papers are fairly poorly cited. Jlevi (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some discussion and by looking at comparable individuals, I now do not think this passes this criteria. Unless some reliable Japanese-language sources wind up rising (as noted in the comments below) to allow satisfaction of WP:GNG, I would say Delete. Jlevi (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought. It seems like Asahi article and the Science article might be just barely enough for WP:GNG. Do these two articles fail on some of the criteria? Is there a reason why these articles would be insufficient if they were to pass?

Here is my analysis on the Science article. This clearly passes reliability and independence. However, it may be too specifically in reference to the article subject's research to be considered an article about the subject himself. So, though it is a long article, the subject perhaps does not receive the necessary coverage. I'm not sure how the research/researcher disentanglement is usually done for this sort of article.

Here is my analysis on the Asahi article. The coverage appears significant, crossing the WP:One hundred words threshold. The source is reliable. The author is not included, and it's unclear what particular section of the newspaper the article was in, so there may be some influence on our understanding of reliability that isn't captured here. The publisher certainly appears independent. However, the content is certainly not, with almost everything coming directly from Nakamura (I'm not sure independence of content is required for BLPs, however, as it is with organizations).

Thoughts? There are certainly significant NPOV and weight problems here, but those shouldn't necessarily impact notability, and I'd like to give this article the strongest possible counter-argument to deletion. I think what I've presented here is that strongest counterargument. Jlevi (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the Science article is merely a glancing mention of the subject. The Asahi article makes a better case, though it is pretty marginal. I do note that WP:One hundred words is an essay, not a guideline, and the coverage there is brief (and tends towards "man bites dog"). WP:FRINGE holds the article to a high standard of notability, and I don't think the Asahi article meets that. I've !voted keep on climate-change deniers before, and if the WP:NPROF case was anywhere close, the Asahi article might change my mind. But it's not, and it doesn't. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ_Woodroofe, Thanks for the WP:FRINGE reminder. I disagree with characterizing this (or any) reputable scientist, in the area they are expert, as "fringe" to dismiss them. That said, WP:FRINGEBLP says,

There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.

This does not increase the standard. If anything it lowers the standard and adds support to KEEP (article creator). -- Yae4 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ_Woodroofe Sounds fair. Jlevi (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few days ago I tried looking for more sources indicating notability and to find better independent coverage (including expert criticism and mentions in wide mainstream papers). I mostly fell on advocacy org sites and blogs, including Friends of Science's (that has a misleading name BTW) and self-published pamphlets like the one I removed here (despite it being a Google books link, it's not a book). I'm also not convinced that WP:NACADEMIC is met. When good expert sources evaluating fringe claims are rare (and we need them to cover the topic) it's usually a sign of WP:TOOSOON and Wikipedia is not the place to popularize things. —Paleo Neonate – 01:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator). Too bad this isn't an April Fools prank...or is it? First, a comment and question on editor behavior: Is this - which appears to be organizing and recruiting a suppression effort - considered appropriate?[15] Note the creator of the article was not notified.

In addition to having significant impact in his esoteric technical field, his "confessions" book brought a lot of general public attention. This person has been covered in Science[16], and Asahi Shimbun[17], plus some other publications. Japanese language searches may find more coverage.

There is no specific numerical criterion available to apply, but I feel having dozens of citations for some works, totalling hundreds over the years, should be sufficient when considering the very specialized nature of the works.

General Comments: A technocracy source[18] was deleted, rather than talk about it more, but it added a few comments to the quadrant source, so it also demonstrates additional coverage of this person and his work, from an arguably reliable source. This article was written without using any source I thought was of questionable quality/reliability; however, there is a lot of additional coverage of the person, his work, his "breaking ranks" and becoming notorious in the blogosphere, and in articles that will take more time to go through and form opinions on reliability and weight.

Detailed Comments: He has 14 technical publications listed at American Meteorological Society, which no one should claim is "fringe." [19]

Google Scholar search results and citations.[20]

Collapse Detailed list of publications with year and numbers of citations noted

This article in Science, shows the person and his work, had impact, early in career.

Climate modeling's fudge factor comes under fire, RA Kerr - Science, 1994 - go.gale.com, … In a study now in press at the Journal of Climate, Mototaka Nakamura, Peter Stone, and Jochem Marotzke of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report that they deliberately introduced an error into a climate model, then seemingly adjusted the error away, only to … Cited: 41

It is not insignificant that M. Nakamura is second author of "The role of high-and low-frequency dynamics in blocking formation" (cited 268 times) and two M. Nakamura works are cited as references therein:[21]

(1) 1994: Characteristics of potential vorticity mixing by breaking Rossby waves in the vicinity of a jet. Ph.D. dissertation, Cited 18 times

(2) 1994: The effects of flow asymmetry on the direction of Rossby wave breaking. J. Atmos. Sci.,51, 2031–2045. Cited 72 times

Other citations, as primary author, reverse order by year, bolded because of a comment about "the 1990s":

Impacts of the Oyashio temperature front on the regional climate, M Nakamura, T Miyama - Journal of Climate, 2014 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 13

Greenland Sea surface temperature change and accompanying changes in the Northern Hemispheric climate, M Nakamura - Journal of climate, 2013 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 4

Impacts of SST anomalies in the Agulhas Current system on the regional climate variability, M Nakamura - Journal of climate, 2012 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 14

Quasigeostrophic transient wave activity flux: Updated climatology and its role in polar vortex anomalies, M Nakamura, M Kadota… - Journal of the atmospheric …, 2010 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 5

Dominant anomaly patterns in the near-surface baroclinicity and accompanying anomalies in the atmosphere and oceans. Part II: North Pacific basin; M Nakamura, S Yamane - Journal of climate,2010 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 26

Potential vorticity and eddy potential enstrophy in the North Atlantic Ocean simulated by a global eddy-resolving model, M Nakamura, T Kagimoto - Dynamics of atmospheres and oceans, 2006 - Zitiert von: 15

Dominant anomaly patterns in the near-surface baroclinicity and accompanying anomalies in the atmosphere and oceans. Part I: North Atlantic basin, M Nakamura, S Yamane - Journal of climate, 2009 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 32

Transient wave activity and its fluxes in the North Atlantic Ocean simulated by a global eddy-resolving model, M Nakamura, T Kagimoto - Dynamics of atmospheres and oceans, 2006 - Elsevier, Zitiert von: 5

A simulation study of the 2003 heatwave in Europe, M Nakamura, T Enomoto, S Yamane - J Earth Sim, 2005 - jamstec.go.jp, Zitiert von: 24

Diagnoses of an eddy-resolving Atlantic Ocean model simulation in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream. Part II: Eddy potential enstrophy and eddy potential vorticity fluxes, M Nakamura, Y Chao - Journal of physical oceanography, 2002 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 3

Diagnoses of an eddy-resolving Atlantic Ocean model simulation in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream. Part I: Potential vorticity, M Nakamura, Y Chao - Journal of physical oceanography, 2001 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 11

Characteristics of three‐dimensional quasi‐geostrophic transient eddy propagation in the vicinity of a simulated Gulf Stream, M Nakamura, Y Chao - Journal of Geophysical Research …, 2000 - Wiley Online Library, Zitiert von: 10

On the eddy isopycnal thickness diffusivity of the Gent–McWilliams subgrid mixing parameterization, M Nakamura, Y Chao - Journal of climate, 2000 - journals.ametsoc.org, Cited 38 times

On modified rotational and divergent eddy fluxes and their application to blocking diagnoses, M Nakamura - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological …, 1998 - Wiley Online Library, Zitiert von: 6

Effects of ice albedo and runoff feedbacks on the thermohaline circulation, M Nakamura - Journal of climate, 1996 - journals.ametsoc.org, Zitiert von: 17

Destabilization of the thermohaline circulation by atmospheric eddy transports, M Nakamura, PH Stone, J Marotzke - Journal of Climate, 1994 - journals.ametsoc.org, Cited 152 times

-- Yae4 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations are only moderate in a high citation field, and I don't see other signs of notability. I'm concerned at how the article uses his past affiliations to give him a veneer of respectability (if he has a current academic post, I can't find it). A single book (self-publisher even?) isn't likely to give WP:NAUTHOR, and the coverage mostly consists of the review by Tony Thomas and various rehashes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ_Woodroofe, His lengthy dissertation published by MIT should count as a second book, FWIW. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (by article creator). For what it's worth, comparison with other Meteorologist articles... In terms of sourcing and accomplishments, Mototaka Nakamura seems at least as notable and well-sourced as some other meteorologist BLP articles such as Nana Klutse, Reto Knutti, Peter_Cox_(climatologist), Robert H. Johns, Rely Zlatarovic.

Most of the more "highly cited" articles are the "study of studies" type Wikipedia relies on so heavily, or less specialized/focused or more policy type works. As for employment, "coming out" as a non-alarmist or honestly publicizing the high uncertainties of climate model predictions are usually career ending moves. A few other examples have even made it into Wikipedia... Nakamura wrote what sounds like a goodbye to the field, "I have more-or-less lost interest in the climate science and am not thrilled to spend so much of my time and energy in this kind of writing beyond the point that satisfies my own sense of obligation to the US and Japanese tax payers who financially supported my higher education and spontaneous and free research activity." -- Yae4 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the meteorologists brought up for comparison support this argument. Just looking at Reto Knutti's publications, this individual has five publications with 1000+ citations, and >20 with 200+. If these people are used for the purpose of comparison, it seems the argument would be for delete based on the comparison. Jlevi (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either, but my point was Nakamura Wikipedia article is better, and better sourced. It looks to me like Knutti is 2nd or 3rd author on most of the highly cited publications. Maybe Klutse[22] is a closer comparison (by primary author counts). Zlatarovic is too old to use Google scholar. I don't claim Nakamura is the most prolific or most cited, but he is in the ballpark of some others in Wikipedia, at least. Plus his work got arguably more notoriety (or infamy) for the general public. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article status/quality/completeness is unrelated to notability, which is the primary purpose of this discussion. For more information, consider looking at WP:ARTN. Jlevi (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure question: @ජපස: aka jps, Is there a Japan-related AfD list this could be added to? -- Yae4 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. I see a volunteer already added it, but in general you can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting for someone who has the tools enabled to list discussions efficiently. I use WP:Twinkle which does all the sorting at set-up, but there are other volunteers who add these discussions to other lists after the fact. jps (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, delete I think - the sources cited are almost all primary (e.g. mentioned on climate change denialist blog, source, link to climate change denialist blog) and there really isn't much else out there, in part because the sources that do discuss him are almost always unreliable (e.g. they promote climate change denial). Guy (help!) 16:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citation profile too underwhelming to pass WP:PROF#C1 (an h-index of only 13, in a field where citation counts are actually informative). No other evidence of notability per WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR%27easter, I should be more appreciative of someone using a numerical criterion as you did. So thanks for that. Could you point me to a (open/free) source to get those ratings (for authors who don't have profiles/accounts on GScholar)? Also, would you state a minimum value you think should be used, or give the values for the lowest rated similar BLP already in WP, for context, if you know? -- Yae4 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Per WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

In addition to Nakamura's significant coverage published in Asahi Shimbun,^[1] Science,^[2] Manila Times,^[3] The Telegram,^[4] and a few "lesser" news publications, I recently found and added his significant coverage within newsletters published by IPRC, including one with a detailed biography.^[5] Also added significant coverage from a few notable blogs (having Wikipedia articles). These publishers are all independent of each other and independent of the subject. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Researcher predicts cooler climate in Northern Hemisphere from 2015 - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun". web.archive.org. 2013-11-22. Retrieved 2020-04-01.
^ Kerr, Richard A. (1994-09-09). "Climate Modeling's Fudge Factor Comes Under Fire". Science. 265 (5178): 1528–1528. doi:10.1126/science.265.5178.1528. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17801523.
^ "Climate modeler exposes the lie in climate change scare". The Manila Times. Retrieved 2020-03-23.
^ Contributed. "LETTER: Climate change yes, extremism no | The Telegram". www.thetelegram.com. Retrieved 2020-03-23.
^ "IPRC News, New IPRC Staff, Mototaka Nakamura" (PDF). web.archive.org. 2010-06-10. Retrieved 2020-04-03.

There is no "lie" in the climate change "scare", and any publication declaring that someone has "exposed" one is ipso facto unreliable. The item from The Telegram is a reader letter in a local newspaper, carrying zero reliability or noteworthiness, and it has only a passing mention of the article subject at that. The IPRC newsletter is published by Nakamura's employer and is therefore not independent; it would only be suitable for uncontroversial claims like the date at which he joined the organization and, for these purposes, contributes nothing to notability. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even Wikipedia doesn't yet say we need to be scared to go along with "the consensus." Newspaper editors give submitted letters editorial oversight; they don't just publish them willy nilly. An employee may be financially dependent on an employer, but the requirement is intellectual independence, which is satisfied. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, we're not "scared" into agreeing with the scientific consensus. As an encyclopedia, we're part of the reality-based community. Second, local newspapers are not scientific journals, and their editors are not qualified to make scientific judgments. Third, we have established standards for academic biographies, including how sources that are affiliated with a subject can be used. A blurb in a newsletter does not contribute to substantial coverage in a reliable, independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, —Paleo Neonate – 03:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter:I get the feeling you're intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote about "scare," so I'll give up on that. But, Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook are considered experts...because they published in Environmental Research Letters (zero sources)? -- Yae4 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NACAdemic. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Process Objection Re: When Not to use deletion process - personal beliefs

Process Objection (by Article creator) (Restated after unexplained reversion): When to Not Use Deletion Process says a reason is: "Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons". I feel this may be the primary reason this AfD was started. Thus, this AfD is improper, and should be ended. I ask impartial admins (if possible to find) to please evaluate.

Suggested data for evaluation:

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mototaka_Nakamura started 19:04, 30 March 2020 (Rallying cry?)

User_talk:Yae4#Warning 16:41, 31 March 2020: "Warning"

followed 18 hours later by this AfD. 10:49, 1 April 2020

This interaction comparison to identify timing and articles/talks.

Talk:Judith_Curry Examine language used by participants also involved here now.

AfD Edit summaries [23][24]

-- Yae4 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I had no involvement with this page before the AfD, and I second the nomination. The objection is anyway off-topic for the AfD (better suited for WP:DRV). I also strongly suggest that you read WP:BLUDGEON, and consider whether some of the points therein apply to your behavior at this AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I've also added it above for the long list of articles and citations, and updated the title. I find most WP discussions are too light on actual evidence, specific measurable criteria, and too heavy on unsubstantiated opinions, so I try to bring details. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2020 (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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gurry

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

No significant roles in anything--the only favorable mention in a review is [25] for a supporting role in "Bad Boys" , and I do not think it enough DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- lacks notability. A minor film role is not enough for an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep: WP:NACTOR is made out, in my opinion, with starring or supporting roles in several films: Bad Boys (1983 film), Author! Author! (film), Willy/Milly and The Zoo Gang (film). WP:GNG is a little harder to establish, because the subject's acting career was primarily during the 1980s. But, in addition to the source provided by the nominator, I've found the following:

→https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bad-boys-1983 − Roger Ebert's review of Bad Boys in the Chicago Sun-Times, describes the subject's character as "inimitable"

→https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-06-ca-80-story.html – Los Angeles Times review of Willy/Milly, includes a brief but favourable review of the subject's performance

→https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1986-05-02-8601260901-story.html – passing mention in Sun-Sentinel review of Willy/Milly

Here are another couple of reviews of Willy/Milly which I am unable to access fully: 1 and 2. If anyone can access the full articles, please let us know if there is anything relevant to the subject. There are also a few hits in Google Books and a couple of Google Scholar hits. Although I can't access the full Film Quarterly review for Bad Boys, it contains at least a brief review of the subject's performance: "Equally good is Eric Gurry…" (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Eric+Gurry%22). I believe there is enough here to merit an article on the subject. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm upgrading my vote to "Keep" because I have found more sources (see below). I think the article can be improved. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant roles so no real reason to consider him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, what are your thoughts on the subject's starring and supporting roles in the films I listed above? Dflaw4 (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep think the sources back up WP:NACTOR.Djflem (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2nd relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has only featured in only handful of films and has never established a prominent career to speak of. Abishe (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, WP:NACTOR requires a significant role in two or more notable productions, but as far as I can tell he had a significant role in one, Willy/Milly, meaning he does not pass it as his other roles are all described as supporting. Bad Boys might be an exception to this, but he is still described as playing a supporting character in the Roger Ebert source. The sources brought up are really just passing mentions, not anything that can contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devonian Wombat, there's no requirement that the roles be "starring", only "significant". Dflaw4 (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I still think he doesn’t pass NACTOR though, and I have altered my comment accordingly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all! Thanks, Devonian Wombat. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: more sources: here, here, here and here. The last source is a write-up solely about Gurry; the other three provide some praise regarding Gurry's performances in the 264-performance run of a theatre production called Table Settings, and other productions. There are also more routine TV listings which, at the very least, support the claim that he has performed in other productions, too, like an episode of CBS Children's Mystery Theatre. Newspapers.com provides dozens of hits on Gurry. I invite Rusf10, John Pack Lambert, Abishe and Devonian Wombat to review these new sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing administrator: If possible, please relist this AfD to provide editors the chance to review these latest sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted in order to allow the examination of new sources provided by Dflaw4. ——SN 54129 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——SN 54129 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His roles may be old and half-forgotten, but they are significant: a Woody Allen play, a film starring Pacino, and a part in Bad Boys for which he earned a lot of praise. Caro7200 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not say "2 or more" it says "multiple". We need multiple roles. Also not all billed roles are significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, "multiple" means "2 or more". Also, the subject's roles appear significant to me, as they are either starring or supporting, and there is referencing to back that up. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SOme people thing multiple means at least 3.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Basically, I pretty much agree with Johnpacklambert’s rationale. Furthermore when i do a BEFORE & the first thing that pops up is a LinkedIn Page & social media pages I become very skeptical, which is what happened when I did a before on this particular article. Furthermore @Dflaw4 you posted about 4 sources above which in my opinion was an attempt by you to prove that this article’s subject is notable but having observed all four I see a “sorry this page no longer exists” message. I’m not sure I see how WP:NACTOR is satisfied here. Celestina007 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, that's very strange. The links still work for me. I presume you are referring to the last four sources that I provided. I will transcribe the relevant text, so you at least have an idea of what they say. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007, the first article pertains to Bad Boys: “Reni Santoni and Jim Moody are members of the staff at the correctional institution, Esai Morales is the boy who wants vengeance, and Eric Gurry is the 15-year-old who is behind bars because he “burned up” the wrong people”. There is also a picture of him along with his co-stars.
The second article pertains to the play, Table Settings: “But a special word for the children, for Eric Gurry’s smartass Grandson and Marta Kober’s anxious Granddaughter on the edge of puberty, especially when she tips over it and, all dressed up for her first party date, clomps off unsteadily on her first high heels, an old device cleverly reworked here.” Again, there is a photo of Gurry with his co-stars.
The third article pertains to Author! Author!: “Nick, Murray’s nephew, has been replaced by 16-year-old Igor (played by Eric Gurry), Ivan’s son from his first marriage to an Armenian guitarist, but this is Nick all over again… Except for Eric Gurry’s Igor, the kid actors are cute and resistible. Gurry brings as much to the party as the young Barry Gordon did 20 years ago in “A Thousand Clowns”—and that’s a lot.” There’s a photo of Gurry with his co-stars.
The final article is a write-up about Gurry and his role in the Woody Allen play, "The Floating Light Bulb", and it mentions other roles, too:

“I’m so glad that Eric Gurry lives in Ridgewood. I’m happier still because Eric is a talented 14-year-old whose growing reputation on the New York state is providing me with some very enjoyable moment in theatre. Last year, it was the Off-Broadway comedy, “Table Settings,” which earned him excellent notices. Monday night, he opened in Woody Allen’s “The Floating Light Bulb” joining a small but distinguished cast includes Beatrice Arthur, Jack Weston and Danny Aiello at Lincoln Center’s Vivian Beaumont Theater.

"In “The Floating Light Bulb” Eric plays the younger son of a Jewish family living in the Canarsie section of Brooklyn in 1945. His father, (Aiello), several years young than his mother, is a ne’er do well, a waiter cum gambler who mysteriously disappears each time the phone rings and the caller hangs up. His mother (Beatrice Arthur) is trying to hold a disintegrating family together, bemoaning her fate and ultimately pinning her hopes on her older son, (Brian Backer), a genius with an unfortunate speech impediment who finds his only pleasure practising magic tricks in the privacy of the bedroom (hence, the floating light bulb trick).

"In the comedy-turned-drama, Eric tries to pacify the entire family, setting off to be with his friends when the going gets rough. His mother accused him of setting neighbourhood fires, a delinquent without the intelligence of his older sibling. Eric says he sees himself as “a friendly delinquent, a mini-image of his father trapped in his situation.”

"Is the play autobiographical? Woody Allen has publicly said “no.” Eric is of the opinion that there is some truth to the character of Paul Pollack, the stammering magician. Certainly, he cannot help but remind the audience of a young Woody Allen who, I have also read, practised magic in the privacy of his Brooklyn home.

"Since I saw “The Floating Light Bulb” in a preview performance last week, I have been sworn not to “review” it lest there be some last minute changes. That honor goes to our regular reviewer, Gordon Tretick (next page). I will tell you, however, that this is not the totally serious Woody Allen of “Interiors.” There are the appealing Woody Allen comments such as Bea Arthur saying, “I don’t nag; I encourage,” and the Allen attention to detail which is apparent in the setting of this one-scene, two-act play.

"If there is dissension among the characters on stage, there is complete harmony off stage, according to Eric. The cast members truly seem to enjoy each other. Eric rides to New York each day with another Bergen County resident, Danny Aiello, who lives in Ramsey. And meals during the weeks of rehearsal have been cast affairs. “No,” Eric says, “Woody Allen hasn’t said very much to us or come to meals. He really is very shy.”

"This week, the rehearsals and formal opening behind him, Eric returns to his 8th grade classes at George Washington Jr. High School. For this production, the company has provided a tutor to make sure he keeps up with his studies—in addition to a private dressing room with telephone. And ahead? Eric says he has no definite plans for the summer. There is the possibility that the run of “The Floating Light Bulb” will be extended to July; he has a small part in the soon-to-be released film, “Ragtime,” and a role in tonight’s episode of the series, “Nurse” CBS TV 10 p.m.”

There is also a photo of Gurry with co-star Aiello.

I think these roles are sufficient for WP:NACTOR, and there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, too. I'll also try to get the "google scholar" article clipped to see what it says. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the consensus is to "Delete" the article, I would request that it be "draftified" so that I can work on it and try and get it up to scratch. I do believe there is enough here to merit an article. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The source I found at ProQuest (from "google scholar") provides another short burst of praise for his performance in Bad Boys, following praise of Sean Penn's performance and saying that Gurry is "[e]qually good". If I am allowed to quote the full passage, I will. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote regarding Gurry's performance from "Bad Boys by Tom Doherty, Film Quarterly, Fall 1983, Vol. 37(1), pg. 27–29":

"Sean Penn's star-making performance as Mick repeatedly saves Bad Boys from stalling on its narrative improbabilities; onscreen he exudes such command and alertness that one sometimes wonders how his character could be so stupid as to get in this mess. Equally good is Eric Gurry (lately of Author! Author!) as Mick's creepy cellmate Horowitz, a barely post-pubescent electronics wiz on hand to provide exposition and a taste of serious derangement. Horowitz is a shrimp among Rainford's physically imposing inmates, but Gurry's character has such a psychotic edge that the big boys understandably leave him alone." (pg. 29)

Gurry is also seen in the photo with his co-stars on pg. 27. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that we have enough sourcing to justify the article being kept. Does it need work? Absolutely. Yet the actor himself appears to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yan Zhang

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

The subject of this biography is not notable. Zhang, a 22-year-old associate conductor of a small independent non-notable group, has no coverage in reliable secondary sources; the sources cited in the article are all primary, and a BEFORE search yielded nothing. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited in the article are either unreliable or not about the subject. A Google search of the subject doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2020 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Bus Line 1

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

Just another non notable, run of the mill, bus route that doesn't need special treatment by having its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The topic clearly fails WP:GNG and the content has been cited with only two primary sources which seems to be unreliable. The bus routes do not hold any significance. Abishe (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Briefly mentioned in this Bangkok Post article about bad service, where it's ranked the second worst in Bangkok,[26] as well as lots of news items about their bad driving.[27][28][29][30] --Paul_012 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not speedy, which clearly does not apply); although there's no reason bus routes must be deleted, those that survive usually do so on account of a ~century of history being accumulated in reliable sources. However, we also have a policy preventing us from listing those that are non-notable. ——SN 54129 17:23, 9 April 2020 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Koehn

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

Fails WP:POET, non-notable as a university teacher or tech entrepreneur. Article previously deleted twice and salted, author created under David Koehn (poet) to bypass but was later moved to David Koehn ~riley (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Not a notable university teacher or tech entrepreneur. - Sanyam.wikime (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for as far as I can see, the subject isn't notable. --MrClog (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that someone has been name-dropping in this article in the last half-hour without any sources. That is counter-productive. To save this we need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Koehn. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted names Koehn worked with are referred to here by an independent source: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2015/05/this-summer-lets-go-back-to-cool-with-omnidawn-publishing- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.205.15.71 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given lack of lack of notability and, well, being deleted and salted. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The names included were included the same way as on the Dean Rader page and this names are all connected to referenceable sources (for example the names listed in the article are refenceable here: https://www.omnidawn.com/prosody-online-workshop/. This person is more esteemed, has more awards, more references, and more books than other authors in the same press...as an example see Jackie Craven. The current attitude of the flags indicate inequitable flags relative to other successful Wiki posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.205.15.71 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is the opposite of an independent source, because (it was claimed here) Koehn is on the board of directors of the publisher. And we are discussing this particular article here. There may be others that should be deleted, but they should be discussed separately. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Norma Cole is also on the Omnidawn board. This does not impact her references to Omnidawn. The workshop is an independent offering by Koehn where the proceeds are donated to Omnidawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.205.15.71 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly should disqualify references to Omnidawn as independent in the article about Cole. As I said above, we are discussing Koehn here, not Cole. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT Clearly not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt both undabbed and dabbed titles. To the IP: Any sources that the subject or their surrogates controls, has written, or contributed to do not count when assessing notability as Wikipedia defines it. By definition an organisation he's on the BoD for is a surrogate for him. Whether or not the names are referenceable is also a red herring, as is pointing to other articles. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 03:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete and SALT both undabbed and dabbed titles" Fails all notability standards and clearly Koehn will continue to re-create this article unless there is stringent SALTing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2020 (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) ——SN 54129 17:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SEPECAT

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

This page contains nothing that isn't already on SEPECAT Jaguar and is just an unnecessary fork of that page. SEPECAT was a one product entity. This page should be deleted or replaced by a REDIRECT to SEPECAT Jaguar. Here is a diff showing what was there before a whole lot of content from SEPECAT Jaguar was put on the page: [31] Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aircraft articles shouldn't be burdened with company-specific information, and this article is well-sourced and lengthy as it is, and it's a notable topic. Any duplicate information about the company on Jaguar article should be removed. - BilCat (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BilCat for a manufacturer of more than one product I would agree, but SEPECAT was a single product venture, SEPECAT and SEPECAT Jaguar are synonymous and all of this page is duplicated from the Jaguar page. Please look at both. Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did look at both. I simply disagree with your point of view that two articles are unnecessary, which I have addressed to my satisfaction. - BilCat (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK then please remove all the SEPECAT JAGUAR information from the SEPECAT page and see if what remains justifies a page. Here is the diff showing what was there before a whole lot of content from SEPECAT Jaguar was put on the page: [32] Mztourist (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I intended to after the AfD is over, assuming this article is kept. Otherwise it's just wasted work. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        OK I'll do it then to show the point. All that's left is two sentences, which hardly burdens the SEPECAT Jaguar page with "company-specific information". Mztourist (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:POINTy disruption reverted. - BilCat (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Its not POINTy disruption, its showing what the page looks like once all the duplicated information from SEPECAT Jaguar has been removed, something that you said above was "wasted work". I understand why you don't want to do this because it makes the untrimmed page look more substantial and worthy of retaining rather than the two sentences of content that remain. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Transall was also a 'one product entity', not a valid rationale for article deletion. I would be very disappointed to be redirected to the Jaguar article if I was interested in SEPECAT. Manufacturing companies/organisations of aircraft are almost always notable and have their own article, even individual people have articles, eg Jim Bede. Splitting an article like this is recommended per Wikipedia:Summary style...A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own.

If an editor discovered a fantastic reference source on SEPECAT how would they advance the subject to Featured article status if it is not covered by its own article? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the courtesy of notifying the article creator and associated wiki project has not happened (per WP:AFD). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transall should be deleted on the same basis as that page is all about its sole product, the Transall C-160 and on a quick review it seems most of Transall is copied from that page. As detailed above, if you remove all the duplicated information from SEPECAT Jaguar page you're left with two sentences. I think at this stage the possibility of "an editor discover(ing) a fantastic reference source on SEPECAT" and "advanc(ing) the subject to Featured article status" is highly unlikely, but if it were the case they could just create a new page. I am not obliged to notify the article creator and my comments: Talk:SEPECAT#Is this a necessary fork? have been on the Talk Page since 14 February (when the page was only 2 sentences), giving all interested parties plenty of time to respond. SEPECAT and Transall each contain minimal information about the companies, but they have been plumped up with information about their sole product to justify the existence of separate pages.Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the manufacturer is separate from the product. The company and the product are notable separately. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2020 (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 delete. It appears this was created by a friend of the subject of the article. I'll follow up things that might need to be done. Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alayzah Foster

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources that indicate notability were found. Antila333 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:A7. Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Created by SPA. userdude 06:13, 1 April 2020 (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 06:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Counterword

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

this seems to be more of a dictionary entry rather than a page that is concerned with the technique of using counterwords in speech/writing Katnotcat (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:BCA. WP:NOTDICT Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, being a WP:DICDEF. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 06:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See wikt:counterword. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:57, 8 April 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 16:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punchscan

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

It received some coverage briefly during a limited period but notability does not seem to be sustained and it did not reach to the level of notability for WP:NCORP, WP:NPRODUCT. Graywalls (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose it should be merged into Scantegrity article. PulpSpy (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTTEMP applies. This generated significant, independent, and reliable coverage as demonstrated by the references already in the article. Google Scholar also generates multiple results: [33]. While, like many university research projects, it has not generated a commercial product, it was a notable research effort that received substantial coverage. [[Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTCLEANUP also applies in terms of the dead links. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Link to the source please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relisting comment As mentioned, the references in the article are mostly in the form of broken links so the advice of the LTTS essay is inapplicable. I have, however, verified them myself using a university library to which I have access. According to the Verifiability policy, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Essays, as you know, do not take precedence over policy. The Google Scholar link should, however, provide interested editors enough context to verify for themselves that there had been academic discussion of the article subject at that point in time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 15 April 2020 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas O. Jones

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

Businessman who operates a Wendy's franchise and started a few non-notable businesses. References are primarily websites of former employers (mostly gone now). I can't find anything that would qualify as significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. Glendoremus (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with storm and fire: Eeesh, complete NN; I particularly love the puffery involved in "He is president of eLanes LLC, a company based in North Andover, Massachusetts that integrates restaurant technology, consumer marketing, and restaurant operations and operates a southwestern Wendy's franchise." (= he runs a Wendy's outlet.) Creating this vanity piece is the only Wikipedia activity of the all-too-similarly named Special:Contributions/Mtjones1959, and it's a disgrace that this has been up for over a decade. Ravenswing 02:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt : I completely agree with Ravenswing. Found no recent articles about him on Google news. -- Steven655 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The very creation of this article shocks me. I would not be surprised if his Wendy's franhise were in Dedham, Massachusetts but I did not know there was anywhere else where such a non-notable person could get an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2020 (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. No sock arguments have been taken into consideration, but consensus remains clearly against deleting the article. However, WP:NPASR applies in view of the confusion they have strewn. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 17:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ip

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines in WP:POET. He has not written any works that are transformational, original or a significant public monument. In the news, coverage of him is only in passing, and most of the other sources are blogs. He does not appear to be widely cited by peers, or as having influenced any notable poets. I cannot see any justification for retaining this as an encyclopedia entry. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on WP:ANYBIO, the subject has won multiple national-level awards in his field, including the Young Artist Award and Singapore Literature Prize, which are the highest national-level awards for a young artist and a published manuscript respectively. Also, a check of Google Scholar reveals multiple citations from notable sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals – regular inclusions in the annual “Malaysia and Singapore” digest of the Journal of Commonwealth Literature, the “Contemporary Literature from Singapore” article in the Oxford Research Encylopedia of Literature 2017, introductions of Singapore Literature in English and other books. Google News includes significant coverage in multiple national newspapers, inclusive of reviews, interviews and articles. Lightsup112 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC) — Lightsup112 (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Desapar (talk • contribs). [reply]

Lightsup112 can you attach these sources you mention? Google News coverage that I found was not significant, covering the subject in passing only. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to weigh in on the rest. Even assuming that you are correct (still waiting for the links) about citation in peer-reviewed academic journals; this is not enough to establish notability. The subject must be widely cited, which indicates their authority in their field. The only news coverage I could find includes blogs (not a reliable source, WP:RSOPINION). There is some coverage in The Straits Times, but these are (1) some pieces written by the subject, and not about the subject, and (2) reviews of his books, but not coverage of him. There is not a single source of significant coverage in a reliable third party source that I can find to establish the subject's notability, not even following his winning the Singapore Literature Prize. The Singapore Literature Prize is a significant achievement, but whether this is enough to establish the winner's notability is dubious. The subject has himself said it has weak recognition even in Singapore: [34] that "while the prize has some cachet within the community ... it has some way to go in terms of recognition by a wider Singaporean audience." All this adds up to: why should the subject warrant an entry in an encyclopedia? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reviews of a person's works ie. "Poems that work as puzzles to be decoded" - a review of Footnotes on Falling do indicate notability, see no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR, and a recipient's attitude to an honor like the SLP - one of, if not the, top literature prize of Singapore, does not lessen its wikinotableness (think high British orders that have been refused). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple,

How can it be correct that a person is deserving of an encyclopedia entry because one of their books has been reviewed by one newspaper? This is setting the bar very, very low indeed, and would flood Wikipedia with entries. This doesn't even fulfil the notability criteria for the book, which requires coverage in (per WP:BK) two or more non-trivial sources.
The comparison with high British orders cannot be correct; no one who has refused a high British order has done so because it is not notable. In fact, they would have done so precisely because of how well-known it is, so that refusing to accept the honour makes a statement of principle. The point I am making is that (1) the Singapore Literature Prize is poorly recognised in Singapore, and (2) the subject has himself said this in a well known publication (and as a recipient, he is something of an authority on the subject). If a Singaporean literature prize is not even well recognised by a Singaporean audience, what claim can it have to generating notability?
I would also point out this, very importantly: the person needs to be notable enough to warrant their own biographical entry. If the person is defined solely in terms of a single event, then perhaps it would make sense for an entry for the book, but not for the author. I cannot find any sources covering the subject in detail. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) i did not say that one review means that someone meets wp:author, only that reviews (note the plural) indicate that, i then gave one example;
2) please provide sources that back up your statement that the SLP is "is poorly recognised in Singapore" and not just from an apparently (from your pov anyway:)) non-notable person (i note that the wikarticle on the SLP has nothing about this), ditto (sources please) with your statement "no one who has refused a high British order has done so because it is not notable. In fact, they would have done so precisely because of how well-known it is", i don't see that reason at List of people who have declined a British honour, unfortunately The Guardian doesn't say much here on why (the number one reason for refusal of australian honors (that are based on the british system) according to the Herald Sun btw is not because they're notable but due to "modesty" - "Leading Australians snub Order of Australia honours");
3) agree that, in the majority of cases, if someone is known for one event/book, then that event/book might warrent an article, not the person. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Fine. As you say, no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR says that multiple independent reviews make an author likely to be notable. If you are able to attach any other reviews of the same book, this would go some way to justifying your point. I, for one, could not find any. I saw one here: [35], ~~but the subject is himself an editor of that journal, so I don't think the source qualifies as independent coverage.~~ (I stand corrected) (Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

2. My point is that the subject is not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. This does not mean that nothing he says deserves notice. As a recipient of the award, he is perfectly placed to opine that it is not well recognised, and he did so in a well known publication. The same 2018 article quotes "writers and publishers" as saying that the prize's impact on sales is "negligible". They say that "the prize struggles to move beyond preaching to the converted". The article also says that the prize has not propelled its winners onto the Straits Times bestseller list, with a "rare" exception of The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, which won three Eisner Awards (clearly notable, the equivalent of winning an Oscar, and far more likely to be the cause of its popularity). I accept what you say about British honours, though there are plenty of examples on the list you have attached of people declining honours for principled reasons - see Peter Benenson as a protest against British human rights abuses, Patrick Heron as a protest against British education policy, HLA Hart who believed that state honours should only be given for public service, or Stephen Hawking, who did not like titles. No one on that list would seriously suggest that British honours are not notable, the way Joshua Ip suggests that the Singapore Literature Prize is not notable.

3. There might be a case for that here - one of Joshua Ip's books receiving an article, but not him. There are simply too few sources from which to construct a reliable picture of him, and this might simply be because he is not notable enough for one. Though I would point out that even his Singapore Literature Prize winning anthology sonnets from the singlish has hardly any coverage beyond bookshops and Cha Literary Journal, ~~which as I said above, Joshua Ip is an editor of.~~ Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Subject has been conferred several national awards, including the Singapore Literature Prize in 2014 and Young Artist of the Year in 2017. This qualifies the subject as notable, under notability guidelines WP:ANYBIO ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times."). Significant transformational content is not a prerequisite for entry. Desapar (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded to this point above. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - WP:GNG

Significant coverage of the subject's work in peer-reviewed journals,<[36][37], citations in introductions of scholarly books on Singaporean Literature by notable presses [38], coverage in encyclopedic entries on the topic, [39],

Multiple reviews of the subject's work in multiple newspapers[40],[41][42], multiple independent literary journals[43][44][45].

Multiple national-level awards, including the Singapore Literature Prize and Golden Point Award, [46] and the Young Artist Award, " Singapore’s highest accolade for young arts practitioners who show promise of artistic excellence in the fields of dance, theatre, music, literature, photography, art and film."[47] A cursory comparison reveals that there is no other Singaporean writer in English who has been awarded all of these three. 2401:7400:4003:E1AE:1F7:3337:F823:4FEB (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, some examples in passing of significant coverage of subject in literary essay collections by peer [48][49], being taught in course syllabi at university-level[50], inclusion in commercially-available educational material.[51]2401:7400:4003:E1AE:1F7:3337:F823:4FEB (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC) — 2401:7400:4003:E1AE:1F7:3337:F823:4FEB is blocked as a sock puppet of Desapar (talk • contribs). [reply]

I will let others weigh in, but here's my take.

There are only two good sources in this list: [3] and [16]. Everything else is sparse, especially the newspaper coverage. The journal entries are useful, but the engagement does not suggest anything seminal about his work. As such, it generates about the same kind of notability value as a junior academic, and junior academics do not warrant Wikipedia biographies.
Here's an example of good newspaper coverage. It is of the "peer" you cited - Koh Jee Leong, [52], and is of a full profile of the subject. His work has also been recommended as a top book by the Financial Times. Even he doesn't yet have a Wikipedia page. Wherever Joshua Ip is quoted in newspapers, it is just in passing or a routine review of a book.
The Golden Point Award recognises promise of artistic excellence. But an encyclopedia chronicles notable achievements, not the potential for them. A Rhodes scholar, for example, does not get a Wikipedia article simply for being a Rhodes scholar.
As far as I can see, Joshua Ip's strongest claim to fame is the Singapore Literature Prize. This would ordinarily be enough for me, but I am conflicted for the following reasons:

This isn't the Booker Prize or the Nobel Prize for Literature. It's a national award. For this reason, the bar is higher to show that it is a well-known and significant award or honour. (per WP:ANYBIO)
Its notability is dubious even for its target audience. Singapore's largest daily newspaper has quoted writers (including Joshua Ip!) and publishers saying that it is not widely recognised by Singaporeans.

For these reasons, I find it hard to accept that he warrants an encyclopedia biography for having won the SLP. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The subject may not have received very much international coverage, but he is much-discussed in the Singaporean press. A cursory search on https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/ reveals that his name has appeared 74 times since 2012. (The articles are sadly paywalled.)
Furthermore, if one demands that all subjects on Wikipedia must receive international coverage in order be deemed encyclopedia-worthy, that excludes most writers from small nations, especially those who do not write in English. A cursory look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Singaporean_poets reveals entries by Singaporean writers who have accomplished less, such as Rebecca Chua, Sng Boh Kim, Muhammad Jailani Abu Talib and Teo Poh Leng.
Kohlrabi Pickle also erroneously states that the subject is an editor of Cha journal. The journal itself does not list him as such. https://www.asiancha.com/content/view/3022/640/ Ng.yisheng 15:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no expectation of international coverage by Wikipedia policies. My issue is that his press coverage is cursory. If this is because I brought up the Financial Times, I would be satisfied with Ip's books appearing on the Straits Times bestseller list or being recommended as a top book by the Straits Times, which would at least indicate notability in Singapore. It seems from online sources that the books are neither bestsellers, nor has anyone suggested that they are transformative or a significant literary contribution. I would be very happy to be proven wrong. I stand corrected about Cha Literary Journal - I had opened a past issue where he was a guest editor. I have stricken out the erroneous statements in my text above. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep having read through the provided sources, as well as additional sources linked here, I think that the subject falls short of cleanly meeting GNG. However, it's clear that he receives critical attention for his work, and national literature prizes go a fair way toward meeting ANYBIO. Additionally, because the subject writes in Chinese in addition to English, there's a solid chance that there's additional coverage of his work in other languages. I would feel more strongly about this vote if either we already had articles for the awards that Ip has won (establishing their notability), or if it was clear that a large portion of Ip's work was non-English, but I think that there's reason to believe that WP:NPOSSIBLE has been met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 6 April 2020 (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. The arguments are basically, "There's enough good sources to meet WP:GNG" vs "Yeah, but every industry is impacted, what's so special about this one?". There's roughly equal numbers on the two sides. There's already been enough discussion that a relist seems unlikely to be useful. And, to User:GoodCrossing, all I can say is WP:BEANS. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the cannabis industry

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

Hyperspecific topic of relatively insignificant encyclopedic value. Coverage cannot be sustained as its only a few months old and unlike the virus itself, we have no clue if the pot industry will be impacted. In other words, if fails WP:NOTNEWS and we cannot assess the question of WP:N as its too new to see if this has a lasting impact. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Crystal balling while stoned is still crystal balling. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not implying I'm stoned. Regardless, the article currently has 8 citations specific to the topic, and there are a dozen or so more posted on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t show it meets the WP:SUSTAINED requirement. That shows you have a verifiable fact that you may be able to include in an article. WP:NOPAGE is also part of WP:N and considering the impacts of a pandemic on one industry that in all honesty no one is thinking about right now probably doesn’t need its own article even if it is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tony I'm shocked to see you saying "one industry that in all honesty no one is thinking about" when there is literally a New York Times article on the topic cited in the article. Disparaging remarks like this don't get us any closer to an honest, reasoned consensus. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s a fair assessment: most people are worried about their lives and livelihoods, not their marijuana. I could produce articles on the impact on liquor stores as well: most of them have been classified as essential services, but we wouldn’t dream of having an article on the impact on liquor stores or the alcohol industry. It’s a novelty topic that gets attention now because Wikipedia tends to be sympathetic to many of the ideals of those who politically support liberalization of cannabis use, but no one has demonstrated that it is likely to be discussed a year from now. We would not have an article on alcohol, toilet paper, or many other products which have received media attention because of this. WP:NOPAGE tells us to consider not having a standalone page when a mention elsewhere will do. This can easily be one line in an article about economic impacts. It’s a minor thing that’s part of a greater response. It doesn’t get a page under policy until we can tell if the discussion is going to be sustained and that a page will be sustainable long term. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we could do this for literally any product or industry, but we won't. What's next, "Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the mulch industry"? – bradv🍁 03:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). There's plenty to add to the article based on the sources I've posted at Talk:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the cannabis industry alone. There are many others I'm seeing at Google and Google News as well. Local and state authorities and elected officials are commenting and implementing policies specific to the cannabis industry, and there's coverage in local markets across the U.S. as well as sufficient coverage in nationally recognized publications. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Keep, well sourced especially on the talk page source-collection. The difference between this topic and, say, mulch, is that state and city governments seem to be listing medicinal cannabis outlets as essential businesses and not ordering them closed in the imposed lockdowns. So the topic ranks with the impact of this event on food production, the retail pharmacy industry, and other defined essential businesses. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which should have their own article. Have one article on it all rather than one on everything (WP:NOPAGE). This is the same argument I’d make for any “industry” COVID page. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reasonable requirement to lump together everything "industry" related under Category:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The food industry article alone is over 10k of readable prose now. I’m sure that together they exceed the 50k WP:SIZERULE, and are obviously growing. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those articles are probably not writing in summary style and are conveying more information than we want in a Wikipedia article. Trimming and combining into something more comprehensive is much more useful to the reader. I’d also argue most of those don’t pass WP:N as they fail WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. So, yes, we should delete or merge most of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTTEMPORARY, which shows that notability has already been achieved. The page, and topic, are notable. And as I say below, the topic of cannabis prohibition is directly involved in this, as the "essential status" given to industry outlets in an historical shutdown puts emphasis on the ongoing end of prohibition. I'd also point out that many more sources have been added since the start of this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for one reason only. We follow significant coverage in reliable sources when determining what to write about. This is abundantly evident, as opposed to, say the "mulch industry". ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bri and Randy Kryn: I’d actually suggest merging to Socio-economic_impact_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic, which I didn’t see when we made this AfD. I think it’d fit rather nicely there, along with discussion of alcohol and other “essential@ services that people have questioned or discussed in the media. I think it’d be better to delete than have as a stand-alone, so don’t want to close the AfD if there’s no consensus to merge, but I think we could have it as a nice section of a bigger article on the impacts of the virus. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page seems to fit fine among the topics in the 'Impact' section of template {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}} and, as editors are pointing out, the article is extremely well-sourced. Eventually a few more essential service articles will emerge and become well-edited, and these will probably pass the well-sourced barrier as well. All the well-sourced pages will likely become much further clarified and edited as the months and years go by, doesn't seem a reason to begin limiting them at this point. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic per Tony above. Of course news reports can focus on hyper-specific examples, I am not convinced that makes them independantly notable or worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. News are memes, Toilet paper panic bying in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic passes WP:GNG but is WP:NOTNEWS. All the items in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic related shortages could be split into their own article per WP:GNG. The effects on the cannabis industry are not independantly notable, like with so many other industries some companies laid people off and sales were up. This material does not need more than two sentences in a related page. Also, all of the related articles are also just collections of hyperspecific news reports and will require some extreme trimming. In Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the food industry, we learn that New Zealand closed butcher shops on March 25, 2020 and that Swedish restaurateurs have a feeling of utter despair but also high levels of camaraderie. All of this passes WP:GNG, none of this is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge or redirect this can be merged into the main article. We don't need a separated article for this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The COVID-19 has had strong impact in every industry and it is not surprising for the fact that cannabis industry has also been affected due to the pandemic. Few sources mentioned in the article have implied the importance on the impact of COVID-19 on this industry. Abishe (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not an encyclopedia worthy entry. Why this product? What about the impact on the xyz industry? Redirect, merge or delete. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There shouldn't be a separate article for every thing the virus has impacted. Since at this point it's pretty much everything. There's no reason this topic can't just be mentioned in the article about the virus or a general "impact of Covid-19" article. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see this being more notable than the TP shortages, and that doesn't have an article. Also, I'd say it's even a bit WP:CRYSTAL GoodCrossing (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep But only if properly sourced. We can't include effects on everything. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG which is Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and the standard for making deletion decisions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is not Wikipedia’s standard for inclusion: WP:N whole is, and it fails that miserably as it lacks evidence of sustained coverage or of passing WP:NOTNEWS. Failure of WP:NOT while passing the GNG also being grounds for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that medical and retail cannabis stores are being deemed "essential" by numerous states is notable as an affirmation of governmental acceptance of the product. So this is not just recent news, but an important and page-worthy topic in the overall history of America's cannabis prohibition. That, combined with adequate sourcing and the fact that many other products and industries have their own pages within Wikipedia's corona-19 collection, seems to pass the Keep-delete-merge bar. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - So is alcohol. As evidenced by my journey to Total Wine tonight. There are journalism articles on the alcohol as essential concept. We don’t and shouldn’t have Impacts of COVID-19 on alcohol consumption despite the coverage right now or it’s essentialness. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. If the section in the merge target expands enough to justify a split, then split again. Not sure of exactly which article it should best be merged into, but one about the cannabis industry seems moderately obvious. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it passes GNG. Why the cannabis industry and not the mulch industry or something else? Because it passes GNG. SUSTAINED can't be proven or disproven because it's too soon, and as SUSTAINED itself says, for a current event, lack of SUSTAINED is no reason to delete. This is a valid spin-off of the main socioeconomic impact article. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add: I disagree with "merge", because the notion that we can cover all of the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in one article is patently insane. One thing I am 100% sure of: the socio-economic impact of this pandemic will be written about in multiple full-length books, and become a standard part of sociology and economics curricula at universities around the world. This is as big of a topic as "the socio-economic impact of World War II". It's already a topic that RSes around the world are writing about every single day. I wouldn't be surprised if we had an article about COVID-19 socio-economic impact for every single major industry (and, of course, cannabis is a major, hundred-billion-dollar-per-year industry). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or delete. Basically news snippets. Not sure if this topic is very WP:N at all. WP:GNG, yes. WP:QUALITY, no. Also, we decide on a case-by-case basis, not just on what guidelines say. >>BEANS X2^t 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. The impact on this industry, as on others, has received a lot of coverage in major journalistic sources.--Pharos (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge We get it, everything is being impacted by the pandemic. We do not need separate articles listing the news headlines of each specific area of interest. Passing GNG does not mandate a separate article, we can cover this topic elsewhere without every little factoid. Reywas92^Talk 08:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in many reliable sources in multiple languages and across multiple countries. I think it is worth a standalone article, but otherwise could be merged to Shortages related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic or Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. --MarioGom (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2020 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Sheriff

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

No references, and no indication of notability. No wiki links other than to the members of the group. No notable or significant works listed. Suggest merging existing content (3 sentences) into the pages about members of the group. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Sorry, but where did this come from? Suffusien of Yellow (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked LTA. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article to indicate notability. Maybe some of the material could be merged into the articles about the collaborators involved. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ToBoFree (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked LTA. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability fail. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best maybe brief mentions in relevant articles, but I haven't been able to find any indication online that this group is notable on its own. In fact, searching for "American Sheriff" by itself leads to several false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per overwhelming consensus above. 159.100.164.63 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked LTA. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Non-notable to be on Wikipedia. -- Steven655 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 5 April 2020 (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. This is on the edge between "no consensus" and "keep", but proponents of keeping the article have made a reasonable argument as to the extent of sources available. BD2412 T 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benno Bikes

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

No evidence of any notability. One source discusses aquisttions which fails to mention the subject, the other reads like a press release issued when it launched. Searches reveal the usual tranche of social media and advertising offerings but nothing substantial. Created by an SPA who created the article after the required 10 trivial edits. Looks like COI or paid editing. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has substance. Ever heard of Mongoose and Schwinn? Suffusien of Yellow (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Struck LTA. ST47 (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- No, and it makes no difference what I have heard of or not heard of. This AfD is based on the Wikipedia test of notability, nothing more. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the article citing sources. 159.100.164.63 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial coverage. Which isn't the case for Mongoose or whatever. I'm not seeing the "substance" in the article either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the three sources one is primary, one does not seem to mention Benno. The other may well be typical press handout about a company launch. Not seeing any real notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for references yields lots of press releases in bike industry magazines and a few passing mentions (so-and-so bike shop stocks Benno Bikes). Glendoremus (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable bike company per WP:NEXIST. There are many sources available.

Cycling Industry
Bikebiz
BusinessDen
Bicycle Retailer
Forbes (Contributor)
Tagblatt (German language)
Pedelecs and E-Bikes German
Ride German

Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like usual, none of this has depth and most of these are minor niche blogs or magazines. Praxidicae (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor sees what they want to see. Notability is determined in this way. Carry on Lightburst (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the full extent of mention in reference #3 above: "Sense said about 20 bikes will be kept on the sales floor from brands Opus Bikes, Benno Bikes and WorkCycles...". As I noted above, only passing mentions and nothing that qualifies as notable coverage per WP:GNG.
Delete as per my previous comments here and Glendoremus/Slatersteven. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh: Disingenuous cherry picking Lightburst (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Bicycling (magazine) is a reliable source that gave them significant coverage. [53] Dream Focus 05:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly, I might add. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP Serious coverage in multiple WP:RS. Adding them to article. WP:HEY Q.E.D., No compliance with WP:Before. Article is NOT what it was when the deletion was proposed.

The Benno Bike newspaper clip board settles this. You folks didn't bother to look very hard (or at least not thoroughly) for the sources that establish notability.

The WP:SPA account (allegedly) has little, if anything, to do with the article as it presently appears. Argumentum ad hominem. No Guilt by Association. The moveant makes illogical arguments that are of no worth at all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -WP:ORGCRIT , which applies in thhis case, states at the very beginning "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ". What we have is many fleeting mentions , press releases etc and one single source that deals with one model produced by the company and not the company itself, for which we have no RSs. This does not provide grounds for a Keep vote!. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is Confirmation bias and belief perseverance. You see what you want to see, and will not be convinced otherwise; and disregarding the vast evidence now in the article. You support the conclusion you reached. And we disagree. I WP:AGF. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. There are a number of references added to the article. An analysis of those reference mentioned above in this AfD show the following:
- This from Cycling Industry News is trivial run-of-the-mill coverage entirely based on the company's press release about their intention to attend a trade show. It contains no in-depth information on the company and fails to include any Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
- This from bikebiz lists some companies that will attend a trade show and includes a section for Ison Distribution at the end. It contains no in-depth information on the company and relies entirely on quotations provided by the distributor (everything is in quotes), fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
- This from BusinessDen is an article on a new bike shop about to open. The owner says that they will keep about 20 bikes on the sales floow from brands such as Opus Bikes, Benno Bikes and WorkCycles and that its full-service shop will offer services such as tuning and safety inspections. A mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV
- This from Bicycle Retailer is an announcement that the company (Benno Bikes) has a new exclusive distributor (Serfas) in the US and relies entirely on information and quotation provided by the respective companies. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
- This from Forbes is from the "sites" section and is therefore regarded as failing WP:RS. Even if we ignore that, this article also fails WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on information provided by the founder (including quotations and opinions) and contains no in-depth information on the company. Fails WP:RS primarily but the content also fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- This from Tagblatt is a nice long detailed article, mostly focussed on Benno Bike Switzerland, that traces the history of the company. But it relies on information provided by the founder of Benno Bikes Swiss who is a connected source and the only source for the content related to Benno Bikes in the article. There is no indication that any information is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Pedelecs & E-Bikes is essentially an Ad dressed up as an article. All of the information describing the founder and the company is standard stuff seen in most of these churnalistic articles and is straight off the main website for the company. The second half of the article pushes specific Benno Bike models. It is neither significant coverage nor Independent Content, topic fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from Ride announces that Benno Bikes got an award from Eurobikes. Again, the company description is the same one we've seen in 100s of these churnalistic press release articles, nor is it a significant award nor significant article. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORDIND

I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your statements concern 8 of 26 (27 if you include the external link) in line cited and linked sources in the article. I think you have misinterpreted the content of the 8. I know you have ignored the other 18. Ipse dixit doesn't apply. This is a well sourced article about a commercial enterprise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I note your abject failure to point to even a single reference that you believe meets the requirements as per WP:NCORP and your failure to even try to provide any sensible rebuttal to what you believe is my "misinterpretation". I know you have difficulty comprehending applicable policies and that is why you prefer to make vague comments rather than debate specifics. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surresponse I know your record at AFDs and editing, too. I avoided and will continue to avoid going down the rathole of personal aspersions from which you emerged. Comment on the article, not the editors. WP:Civil. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like a pretty solid article to me. Carptrash (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number and range of the reviews and profiles are just what one would expect for such a bicycle manufacturer and are adequate to establish notability. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:08, 8 April 2020 (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 06:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruba Joetirmoya Gope

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

Non notable police officer. Fails WP:GNG (Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). There are 31 refs in the article, all of them are routine coverage & just mentioned the person name (passing mention), some of refs even doesn't mentioned the person name & others are directory. The Bangladesh Police Medal-Service (bpm-seba) isn't a notable award (not enough for a standalone article), every year at least 100+ police personal receive this award. The person who created this article, looks like very close to the subject, just look at this photo took by article creator. This article was speedy deleted twice on bnwiki. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. userdude 01:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of any possible minor notability, this article is too much like a promotional press release for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't thing so. Let's wait to add more references. Bangla wiki will be back soon. And you deleted the bangla wiki and that means that you have personal connection with him. Sorry to say. --Khonika (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC) -- Sock master (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khonika)[reply]

Delete I'd like to point out to Khonika just because আফতাবুজ্জামান has deleted this article on another Wiki in no way mean's that he has a "personal connection" with the subject as he has correctly recognized that Dhruba Joetirmoya Gope does not meet bith Bangla and English Wiki's notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this afd looks like it may be heading for a "delete" but i note that Gope has received the Bangladesh Police Medal (Service) which could go towards WP:ANYBIO as only 30 ("Police awards 2020: The number of medallists decreases to one-third") to 100 ("349 cops get awards for best service") are issued each year? other editors' thoughts please? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's not a well-known and significant award e.g. not like Ekushey Padak. Number decrease does not mean its became significant. I'm sure not just in Bangladesh, every country's police has this type of award, it's given by government doesn't mean everyone who received are automatically notable. otherwise we can start creating thousand of thousand article like this. The person shouldn't get an automatic article just because person received Bangladesh Police Medal (Service). And for Dhruba Joetirmoya Gope, You won't find even one significant coverage in reliable sources (only some passing mention). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2020 (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 merge to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology#Telecommunications. Sandstein 11:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teleconferencing in the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and could easily be mentioned in a sentence as a collateral effect of COVID-19 in one of the numerous pages regarding the pandemic PenulisHantu (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PenulisHantu, In which of the "numerous pages regarding the pandemic" could it be mentioned, while remaining within the scope of the specific article? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I usually lean more on WP:DELAY than WP:RAPID, and have !voted delete on a few of these coronavirus/culture intersection articles, but there are an awful lot of sources about the radical and urgent changes in education, many fields of employment, communication among friends/family, etc. that all revolves around teleconferencing. Some of that can be included in other articles, but I think this is a reasonable topic for a stand-alone page -- and potentially an article that others could merge to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 06:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 06:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 06:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have several separate kind of long articles regarding the impact of COVID-19 on different fields and this article has been written as a stub which is irrelevant. The effect on teleconferencing can be mentioned in sentences rather than creating a separate article on this issue. Abishe (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abishe, which articles are you referring to? One of them may be a good target for a merge. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't worthy of it's own article. There's no reason it can't just be mentioned in a general impact of Covid-19 article instead or something. It's to soon anyway. The craps effects just started. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if is expanded with sourced information which is too large to be in an existing article, Merge with an existing article otherwise. --a3nm (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space. On 17:28, 29 March 2020, Pharos added to Zoom Video Communications#Use during the COVID-19 pandemic the helpful (?) link "{{main|Coronavirus impact on teleconferencing}}". At that time, this article we're discussing here consisted of one, unsourced sentence. I find that edit by Pharos to Zoom Video Communications incomprehensible. Even now, this article is feeble. But it might go somewhere. When its authors believe that the draft is better (for its subject area) than are articles that already exist, they can ask for a move to article space. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: The reason I did this is precisely because much of the content in that section of Zoom Video Communications is not actually specific to Zoom, but applies to the whole teleconferencing industry during this time. That page should only have Zoom-specific info, and currently it has generic content on the whole industry simply because it is the most commonly-known brand name.--Pharos (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. If the merged material grows to be appropriate for a full article, it can be split back out. Not sure where to merge it to though. If I think of a good target I will come back.
- Keep if there is no suitable article to merge with. There is already a lot more teleconferencing happening to avoid travel and close proximity, Even Wikimedia projects are on this bandwagon, but it may not have been mentioned in RS yet. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Teleconference is a fairly obvious potential target for a merge and redirect, but there may be better. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Impact_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_on_science_and_technology#Telecommunications. I think this could be expanded in that particular section of the article. Interstellarity (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, I find myself supporting Keep on this one. It's a stub at the moment, but this is unarguably a notable topic. Normally I'd support merging this material into a longer article, but I'm not sure we have a suitable article to merge it to. It's not really about science and technology, it's about the impact of the pandemic on people's lives and work. That's the missing article that needs to be written; until it is, this one should be kept. Robofish (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Teleconferencing during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic then merge into a more relevant article.
Merge and redirect to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology#Telecommunications per Interstellarity. This is a notable topic, but we can't have a separate article for every single aspect of the pandemic. The science and technology article is a good destination and needs expansion. Only if/when it's too big for there should it be split out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Too soon, stop making separate articles on every topic in the news right now. Does not warrant separate page at this point. Reywas92^Talk 08:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with original proposer. None of the information is actually relevant or decently notable, and most of these sentences were already restated in Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology#Telecommunications which is where it was broken off of anyway. More relevant information can be replaced and added to the above mentioned section. —LopezJayLo98 (^{Contributions}) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology#Telecommunications per above. Education-specific information (eg. colleges moving lectures to Zoom) could also be added to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on education. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 10:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology#Telecommunications per reasons above. Movies Time (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2020 (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.

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

An impressive amount of subscribers, but there isn't coverage in reliable sources to match. Does not meet WP:GNG, article creator appears to be a UPE creating articles about the channel's productions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and NORG. This is the coverage I could find:

[54] has minor coverage of of the channel and its parent company.
[55] has minor coverage
[56] (from the article) also has minor coverage.
[57] has minor coverage.
[58] has trivial coverage.

Not enough to meet GNG; certainly not enough to meet NORG. userdude 00:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC); struck duplicate entry 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage that is significant in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 8 April 2020 (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 06:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Music High

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, article creator appears to be a UPE creating hack job articles about Totally TV productions without even checking to make sure that the sources mention the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Could not find any sources that could qualify for GNG. userdude 05:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination which is soundly based on the WP:TOU. 17:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete as with the others in this series of articles, there is no indication of notability in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 9 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Pops

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only provided source which is possibly reliable is some local news coverage focusing on an interview with a local who was cast in this show [59]. The rest of the provided coverage does not appear to be reliable, with a guest appearance from an article in Variety that does not mention the subject at all. The primary editor for the article appears to be a UPE editor, particularly considering that they made a COI disclosure on their user page which they subsequently removed _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage I could find is:

[60] — local paper quoting one of the actors, Scarlet Sheppard, The content of the Totally TV Super Pops show is family friendly and fun
[61] — minor coverage, unclear if this source is reliable
[62] — minor coverage from local paper
[63] — trivial mention

The subject does not meet WP:NTV or WP:GNG. userdude 05:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage that is significant in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:52, 8 April 2020 (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 redirect to Seawind (band). (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Wilson

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

Not notable. Delete or redirect to the band Seawind. Unsourced since 2009. Vmavanti (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 00:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. userdude 00:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. userdude 00:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no refs. Not notable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seawind (band): If the subject has distinct notability, it would be through her contribution to a duet on a compilation album which won a Grammy, but that feels like a stretch. Searches are finding occasional notices associated with performances but I am not seeing sufficient evidence of individual notability outside the band. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seawind (band) per AllyD. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. — Hunter Kahn 13:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect with Seawind (band) as the target. Does not pass WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. There's some search hits but not to reliable SIGCOV. Deletion wouldn't be a huge negative since I strongly suspect the very next search made upon hitting that dead end would be for Seawind (band) since that's what she is known for, but redirects are cheap, and it's a good target, so by a narrow margin is preferred in this case. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2020 (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 06:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Rural Management (Pakistan)

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While searches are complicated by the presence of other Institutes of Rural Management, this IRM does not appear to be notable. This appears to be the only source that is independent, significant, and reliable. That is not enough to pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 8 April 2020 (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 07:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDonate (Pakistan)

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NORG. Could not find any sources about the subject. [64], from the article, appears to be a reliable source about iDonate; however, it alone is not enough for GNG or NORG. userdude 00:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are almost all WP:PRIMARY and cannot be used for WP:GNG. [65] (mentioned above) and [66] appear to be the only sources that are eligible, and the latter is already dead in the earliest Wayback Machine archive. userdude 03:40, 1 April 2020 (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. Sandstein 21:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussaini Blood Bank

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No evidence of notability, and no real assertion of such in the article anyway. Reference is a dead link; organisation's own website doesn't seem to work. Emeraude (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emeraude, their site is working for me. see [67] --Cedix (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cedix - Yes, it's working for me now, but the only citation that appeared on the page at the time is still a dead link (or, at least, goes to the News International front page that doesn't help.) Emeraude (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emeraude, please review the sources and the article in its current form. Nannadeem has added some of them. --Cedix (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Deletion is due to a page creator who merely created the page to increase his/her edit counts without considering due deliberations of references. I have seen this and will make the page properly referenced. I could not work on it because of IP Address conflict (see my meta page). If my this edit is published I will do the job within a few days. Hussaini Blood Bank is well known medical - Health care diagnostics institution and enjoy the status at par with AKF's Fatmid Foundation for blood transfusion (collection + donation) in Karachi. Nannadeem (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Nannadeem has added more sources to the article, so it seems appropriate to get some more eyes on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~ Based on these two links, [68] [69] this is one of the 8 registered blood banks in Pakistan. (one of the five in Karachi). Husaini Haematology and Oncology Trust seems to be another name for this org. This is the only blood bank from Pakistan with an article on Wikipedia see Category:Medical and health organisations based in Pakistan. I would prefer that this article not be deleted, with an assumption that Urdu (and other local) language media should have more coverage of this organisation. Nannadeem is looking into it.Cedix (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like the article is much-improved now by Nannadeem. All 6 references seem to work. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - now a reasonable article. Emeraude (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my comment to Keep, based on the improvements. Emeraude you may do the same. --Cedix (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had, but Keep. Emeraude (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the six sources on the page, at least three are just passing mentions of the subject and one reads like a press release. Notability is on extremely shaky ground here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Not detailed coverage in the WP:RS which can establish the notability.-- Brihaspati (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2020 (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 07:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Sustainable Development

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced since creation in 2015 and no WP:RS appear to exist (at least in English) to demonstrate notability. The only sources found on searches are to the organization's own web pages or to simple database entries and social media profiles demonstrating mere existence. No indication that there is any significant coverage of this organization or its activities in any RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 8 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Haq Home

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources from the article:

[70] is an obituary that mentions Miss Haq Home once.
[71] appears to be an organization directly associated with Miss Haq Home
[72] (2011 archive) has no indication that it is a reliable source
[73] only mentions the Miss Haq Home once; may be associated with it

Of the sources I found:

[74] claims Miss Haq Home is a well-known institute and covers the subject, but it is a blog post.

I do not believe this is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. userdude 06:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Organization lacks broad geographic coverage. References 1 and 4 give passing mention, reference 3 is a mention by the local diocese. There may also be a COPYVIO problem as the article and diocese texts are almost identical. Blue Riband► 14:34, 1 April 2020 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashal (organisation)

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NORG. Could not find any reliable sources on the subject. userdude 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The controlling guideline here is WP:NORG, and it is not satisfied. I found a handful of news hits, but all mentions were trivial, so it exists but that's all we can say about it from independent RS, no SIGCOV. I don't see an appropriate redirect target, so deletion it is. Machine translated searching is always tricky and it's possible I missed something, so if someone finds non-english SIGCOV that indicates NORG is met I'd be willing to strike and reconsider. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2020 (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 merge to Dunkin' Donuts#International. Sandstein 07:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkin' Donuts Israel

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

The company seems to be a none notable franchise of Dunkin' Donuts that was only around for a few years. Most of the sources come from a single website that appears to be a news blog. Them and the other sources are trivial coverage. All that said, I'd be fine with it being merged into the normal Dunkin' Donuts article as an alternative to deletion if it's notable enough to be merged. Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Dunkin' Donuts. A paragraph in the main article should be more than enough coverage.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than enough sourcing to support WP:GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems you didn't even check the articles to see if they actually supported notability. Most of them are not about the company and just trivially mention it in passing, and one doesn't even have any mention of Donkin' Donuts at all. Notability requires in-depth coverage in reliably secondary sources. Which trivial mentions don't count as. More so though with articles that have zero to do with them and where they aren't even mentioned in. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. I don't believe it merits a merge or redirect. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly if there's no consensus to merge, a redirect to Dunkin' Donuts is in order. they are cheap after all. It strikes me as plausible search topic. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I disagree. I can't envisage any situation where people aren't just searching for the main topic (Dunkin' Donuts). A paragraph on country-specific information within a main article suffices if required. A redirect is overkill. Just my 2c - I wouldn't care if there was a redirect in any case but in that case you'll have over-zealous editors creating a redirect for each country which would turn into a ridiculous state of affairs. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dunkin' Donuts § International as per WP:ATD-M. This section of the main article has information for locations in South Korea, Brazil, Colombia, Sweden, Spain, Canada and Japan, as well as information about other countries as well. It makes no particular sense to omit Israel while including all of the other country locations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this redundant fork to Dunkin Donuts#International per North America 1000. Havradim (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dunkin' Donuts for reasons stated above. Nate 2169 ^Talk
_{Contributions} 20:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--this is better developed than I thought it would be. Everyone knows that Jewish pastries are tasty--and the question of whether a multinational corporation can compete in such a competitive environment is a worthy one. Economists have noticed the reverse phenomenon with respect to tech companies and Japan--a Japanese tech company competitive in Japan is likely to do well internationally due to the the extreme competitive nature of Japan's economic situation. Some countries are worthy of special attention due to being a testing lab so-to-speak. A mere redirect would not do this question justice. I suppose other challenging markets for Dunkin Donuts would be the Czech Republic and France. I checked and it seems this page was created well over a decade after the Israel branch folded. It was created by User:Galatz, who has a banner on his page about how he observes the Sabbath. Why would he be interested in Dunkin Donuts failing in Israel? Well, if I was Czech and Dunkin Donuts failed in the Czech Republic I'd say its proof that my mother's kolaches are superior.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, but all of it fits well in the parent article. It is short already and can be condensed further. There is no need for a stand-alone for this, certainly not for a defunct organisation. Havradim (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to spend some time on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Even on Google translate, you may find some interesting jokes worked into the articles. For example, the article on "Lutheranism" has a picture of a Lutheran church in Australia boasting a prominent Star of David. Maybe it just caught someone's eye as a non-sequitur, but it also seems to be insinuating that Lutherans are crypto-Jews! (Those parts of the Reformation about relying on the scripture and not having a pope, and the doctrine of Justification as being the doctrine on which the church stands and falls, ("the true Kabbalah" as mentioned briefly in On the Freedom of a Christian)...just where did Luther get those ideas from? Who was right there in Germany? Touche!) The English Wikipedia could use some Jewish insight and humor. Better than making the reader do Google translate on the Hebrew one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dunkin Donuts#International. Not clear why we need a separate article on the Israeli branch. Number 5 7 18:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge insufficient sourcing in either literature or news outlooks to provide the topic with sustained coverage. Not, perhaps, a surprise; what next, the steakhouse on Leytonstone High Road? ——SN 54129 17:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per North America - Not enough coverage to warrant a seperate article however as the DD article contains other branches I don't really see a reason to exclude it from there. –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 9 April 2020 (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.

April Fools' Day nominations

This section 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 no consensus. April Fool's is over (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger

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)

I am ending hunger Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because my friends can't find food. One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 19:24, 1 April 2020 (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/2020 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Minecraft and place relevant content into the Gameplay section. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because every 60 seconds in Africa a minute passes Firestarforever (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2020 (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 no original research. April Fools' Day is over. (non-admin closure) Bsoyka (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Research

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

This article should be deleted per WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. ^[4-1] Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, citing "What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source". Thomas G. Carpenter Library, University of North Florida. Archived from the original on 9 July 2011. Retrieved 9 August 2014. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2022 (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 Backlog emptied. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Backlog

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

I wonder why no one ever thought of this. To get rid of all of Wikipedia's problems, simply delete them. There can be no pain and suffering whilst trying to reduce the backlog if there simply is no backlog^{[April Fools!]} Firestarforever (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2020 (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/2020 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:35, 1 April 2020 (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/Zoom Video Communications Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoom_Video_Communications

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. April Fools is over (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terraria

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

Version 1.4, which was supposed to be released in 2019, STILL hasn't come out 25% of the way through 2020 Computerfan0 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minecraft as Terraria is a clone of Minecraft. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with KAP03. Who needs 2D when you gave have 3D? And who needs that when you can have a not-cave update? Firestarforever (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2020 (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 redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Toby Flenderson. Consensus is that sources provided are insufficient to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Flenderson

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

Stub article about a character from the The Office (American TV series) which gives less information than in List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Toby Flenderson. Fails WP:GNG John B123 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is already covered on List of The Office (American TV series) characters, and the only information on this article is an unsubstantiated fan theory, falling under WP:CRUFT. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Toby Flenderson with R to list entry tag. Doesn't satisfy GNG. – DarkGlow • 08:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect on List of The Office (American TV series) characters. The same thing applies at Stanley Hudson. DarwinClean (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will redirect Stanley Hudson to the list of The Office characters.(JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 11:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been redirected and the redirection reverted before it would need to go to AfD. --John B123 (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Hudson. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 11:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The above account, DarwinClean, has requested an indefinite block after I politely questioned his immediate AfD and content trimming participation as characteristic of an older account. To the best of my knowledge, no misconduct was identified nor Checkuser tool run, but closing admins may want to take this unusual turn of events under advisement. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there are plenty of valid sources listed on the talk page like https://www.looper.com/369171/why-toby-flenderson-is-the-least-powerful-character-on-the-office/ and https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2012/07/praise-toby-flenderson. They are just not incorporated into the article yet. Passes WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If the two sources Oinker lists above are the best, than there's not much to work with here. The first is short, fancrufty and of doubious reliability, the second mentions him just in passing. That's not enough for GNG (problems with WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Toby Flenderson.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I really love this show, but I have to agree that the two sources Oinkers provided aren't good sources, and the ones that are on the page are all just episode numbers. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2021 (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 more Comic Sans. April Fool's is over (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Sans

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

Do I need to explain this? One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 16:50, 1 April 2020 (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/2020 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Original research and as it violates WP:NFONT. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Arial is the superior font :). –Davey2010^Talk 17:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fonts because reading binary is obviously superior and prevents those who do not need to know information from knowing it. Firestarforever (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete into oblivion There is no reason for the sacred funny text to exist anymore Yes, That Will (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2020 (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. April Fool's is over (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wurtz

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

He may or may not exist, as evidenced by if you ask him.^{[April Fools!]} -insert valid name here- (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Miss you bill The world needs you, please come back Yes, That Will (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: He's been answering questions on his talk page. Believability Bob (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Tonga Time? I think it's Tonga Time. tu'i tonga empire (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2020 (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. April Fool's is over. Have this:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

(non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

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

Per WP:TROUT. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 14:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep vexatious nomination Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cook the trout to stop the trout from being used to slap Wikipedians. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:47, 1 April 2020 (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 Please see WP:RCP. April Fool's is over (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:RecentChanges

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

It's April Fools' Day, so it's okay to let the vandals slide. Right? Wrong. Subject to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DONTDELETETHEMAINPAGE and WP:BEANS. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the single reason that special pages don't have talk pages and I can't unsee that now that I've looked at the links. In other words... I'm probably being WP:PETTY ;-) –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 17:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per A7 GoodCrossing (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Changes are too recent. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 22:38, 1 April 2020 (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/Shadow the Hedgehog

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 Renamed. to March 32 (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

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

Delete as it should really be called March 32.^[4-1] -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Object that it's REALLY more of a January 90 (or January 91st in a leap year) Gimubrc (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback: Get someone with Huggle to do it. Twinkle can't do it. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 16:19, 1 April 2020 (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 get out of quarantine. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homestuck

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

It isn't canon anymore. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're all stuck at home, and I DON'T LIKE IT. Margalob (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2020 (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 Rick rolled. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Astley

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)

Not nessisary to have. Alway telling lies. Always Hurting me and deserting me. Jcoolbro (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am tired of being rickrolled by everyone. Time to teach them a lesson. Koridas (Speak) 16:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rick Roll~~back~~: It's for the first time in 2020. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 16:25, 1 April 2020 (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/List of Google April Fools' Day jokes

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 it died.. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 Mobile

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)

Nobody uses it ^{[April Fools!]}Computerfan0 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iOS, the superior mobile operating system. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:25, 1 April 2020 (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. April Fools is over (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truth

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

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. This article contradicts one of Wikipedia's basic premises, and we can't even be sure of its truth value.^{[April Fools!]} ComplexRational (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I want the truth! Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 14:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can't handle the truth - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lies. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email})
Redirect to Pontius_Pilate#Legacy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2020 (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 too slow to delete, so I keep it for April Fools. (non-admin closure) 7 successful entries. 5 failed. Not very great at jokes (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 00:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic hedgehog

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

Gotta go fast! Collect the protein rings! We must stop Dr. Proteinman! AlexKiddo16 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanic Hegehog. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Gotta go fast and delete this nonsense. Koridas (Speak) 16:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Knuckles — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Blue Hat (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not about the hedgehog, so it's clickbait. THAT'S NO GOOD! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2020 (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 this AfD was imaginary. (non-admin closure) {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 00:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary number

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

There's no such thing as an imaginary number. It's not real.^{[April Fools!]}--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep √-1mag√-1nary numbers are used √-1n mathemat√-1cs to solve equat√-1ons that could not be solved √-1n the real numbers. And, of course, √-1 am real l√-1ke you! GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:40, 1 Apr√-1l 2020 (UTC)
Keep. √-1 th√-1nk th√-1s should be kept too. ep√-1cgen√-1us (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting √-1t would break the quadrat√-1c formula and would make some equat√-1ons √-1mposs√-1ble to solve l√-1ke x^2 + 1. √-1n addition, they are very useful. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contr√-1but√-1ons • Ema√-1l}) 19:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Be ra√-1ional. One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 19:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You be rat√-1onal. And get on my plane of existence. Or should I say tesseract, because I am actually 4D? Pianostar9 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quadratic form. Imaginary numbers are just one-dimensional vectors with a negative unary quadratic form. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a hoax. Koridas (Speak) 22:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Get further input on this issue. It is a complex question. Margalob (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Actually there are some equations in optics that require you to use imaginary numbers for the math to work out correctly. So they do actually exist, in the same sort of sense that any other sort of number exists.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2020 (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 merge to Darth Pandemicus. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Plagueis

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

It's not a story the Jedi would tell you.^{[April Fools!]}JOE BRO 64 11:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia isn't run by Jedi. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fool's is over. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 02:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

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

Fuck you, I do what I want. ^{[April Fools!]} MorphinBrony (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks because it's telling me what to do. Koridas (Speak) 06:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without it, humanity will collapse. Largoplazo (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use a different costume. Nothing says that you can't climb the Reichstag dressed as Superman. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 14:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel so good about this One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 16:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 02:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp

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

I made a conversation, and found out WhatsApp is useless. Texted my grandpa, and he said just "Moo"! AlexKiddo16 (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)^{[April Fools!]}[reply]

Delete - Per the tragic story from the nominator, which made me cry. Koridas (Speak) 06:42, 1 April 2020 (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/2020 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in solidarity with the nominator. This should stop happening. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Facebook Messenger as the more popular and better messaging app by the same company. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moo. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2020 (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 per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A a s i m 07:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTCRYSTALBALL says we should delete because we aren't one...but this article actually is, thus clearly it's the exception that proves the fool. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - ZLEA (talk) 23:57, 1 April 1920 (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 Pano rama says it all. (I LOVE THE LEADER!) (non-admin closure) 7 successful entries. 5 failed. Not very great at jokes (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

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

My son is in the Super-Movementarian cult! Help him out! --Marge Simpson 05:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion (leaning keep) because Scientology is reading this discussion. Renerpho (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definite opinion (leaning destroy with thunderbolt) because all of Mount Olympus is reading this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2020 (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. April Fools is over (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milli Vanilli

They never really existed Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Girl you know it's--girl you know it's--girl you know it's--girl you know it's.
Banish to Bowser's castle and force them to play music for Wendy. Punishment for lip-syncing, especially with a princess in the audience.

You mean Kootie Pie? Foxnpichu (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE - Per WP:COPYVIO. Lip-syncing is not an excuse. Koridas (Speak) 16:11, 1 April 2020 (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 missing from some maps. (non-admin closure) 7 successful entries. 5 failed. Not very great at jokes (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

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

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

No! One! Will! Find! Where! The! Hobbits! Or! Jacinda! Lives! (Gallifrey is a place on Earth - it's name is Aotearoa/New Zealand) --#ChairmanXiFoolery #GenHongKongProtestersFoolery (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 05:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australia to avoid confusion. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; obviously passes GNG with this significant coverage in reliable sources. Also passes NFOOTY. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 05:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per /r/MapsWithoutNZ. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Annex to expand America. Koridas (Speak) 16:12, 1 April 2020 (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 Wrong venue. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 02:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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)

Apparently it was the wrong venue! {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 03:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is still the wrong venue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Both can't be the wrong venue at the same time! Which one is the right venue? This one, or his daddy? {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 03:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're making no sense. The correct venue for this recursive request would be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (2nd nomination). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:57, 1 April 2020 (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 Wrong venue. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 02:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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

This should've never existed! {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 03:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because wanting to delete articles makes you a monstrous psychopath who feeds on the happiness of children. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2020 (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 the Earth being blown up because some people on the internet said so. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

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

Delete to make a inter-wiki bypass. ^[4-1]-KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bury – so we can unearth it. Linguist111^talk 03:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because 27 years ago when I was but a mere cashew farmer in the mountains of Neptune I heard a being from Zazagon-27 mention this place and it is therefore automatically and always notable until the end of time. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable about this ordinary planet. Koridas (Speak) 04:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 05:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kerbin. What is this Earth you speak of? I only know of Kerbin, the world of our savior Jebediah Kerman. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uranus, when in doubt, redirect to Uranus. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 12:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extraterrestrials in fiction - The article was written exclusively by inhabitants of the planet, and all sources are from inhabitants of the planet as well. Full conflict of interest. Hey mid (contribs) 15:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy it! Mwahahahaha! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move closer to Mars. Make Elon Musk happy! -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (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 Delete. because I don't like circles (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Circle

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

AfDs for this article:

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

This should be deleted per WP:CIRCULAR.-KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nom per WP:CIRCULAR MadameButterflyKnife yeah sure.talk 04:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like it. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all shapes from existence. The square and all other shapes with points are too WP:POINTY and the circle and all other curves are too WP:CIRCULAR. Q.E.D. 2147 in Tibet, so they get Star Trek first, Pianostar9 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too many circles in existence. We need to make room for the Earth, people! –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 21:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete the Nominator per WP:NOM NOM NOM. Margalob (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2020 (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/Impeachment of Donald Trump (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. 4-1 is over (non-admin closure) TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 01:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Quintessential Quintuplets

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

I'm still upset about Ichika losing... let's just delete this from our collective memories. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with No One Cares Sulfurboy (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split - Into four articles, Quintessential Quintuplet 1, Quintessential Quintuplet 2. Quintessential Quintuplet 3, and Quintessential Quintuplet 4. Koridas (Speak) 02:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why would you do this to us, Negi? Ichika didn't even do anything besides ringing the marriage bell. Massive disappointment. Roniius (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2020 (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 the dubber takes it all. (non-admin closure) 7 successful entries. 5 failed. Not very great at jokes (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Mizuki

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

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

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

"A noble series embiggens the smallest Anglo-dubber."

For too long, we have been fight over subbing or dubbing on animated series of Non-English speaking countries origin, and now the dubbers will end the argue:

We will delete articles of these voice actresses/singer/whatever to protect the rights of our humble Anglo-Dubbers, such as Castellaneta, MacFarlane, Edgerly, Azaria, Kavner, Cartwright, Buckland, Herington and many others.

(oops, I forgot ~~Stupid~~ Ned Flanders and Lisa Simpson. D'oh!) --#ChairmanXiFoolery #GenHongKongProtestersFoolery (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 02:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout the nominator. Seiyuu > English dub actors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 1 April 2020 (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 Meow. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten

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

Cuteness does not equate to notability.^{[April Fools!]} Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Meeoowww! meow, meow, meow, meow, meow." "Mitskie! Get off my computer!" Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"ROWWRR!! meow, meow" "and stop playing with the mouse!" Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet meme. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nekopara. We need to have more Kiratto Motto Shiny Happy Days and this is the only way to do it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus no ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you dare - Leave the kitten alone you animal abuser. Renerpho (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because I like kittens.^{[April Fools!]} --Dps04 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huff per Uncyclopedia. Gimubrc (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puppy, because why not? MadameButterflyKnife yeah sure.talk 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I like them! LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 13:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turn it into food. We already eat pigs and cows. Might as well. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
K.pgysswlp[lmhiokfvuhdfthfyvyigk.pl.;bh,hkjohtfinmoh i njkl7uplo8up.[ sorry, cat walked on keyboard -insert valid name here- (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2020 (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 Simpsons did it. (non-admin closure) 7 successful entries. 5 failed. Not very great at jokes (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haruhi Suzumiya

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

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

What a rip off. The alien doesn't regenerate and doesn't talk a lot. Better hit the play button... (Plays Doctor Who theme) --#ChairmanXiFoolery #GenHongKongProtestersFoolery (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a follower of Haruhiism I find this nomination to be blasphemy and heretical. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:14, 1 April 2020 (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 I closed it because you didn't get the joke. (non-admin closure) 7 successful entries. 5 failed. Not very great at jokes (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C.

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

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

They are supporting China's separatism, which means they hate my county! -- Sun Yang 01:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manchester United F.C., the superior EPL club. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Manchester City F.C. as that is the team that they should be supporting. Glaceon (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Dial Square F.C.. What Chinese separatism? They're just a small amateur team based out of the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich in south London. Everybody knows that the Wanderers are the bigger club in south London. Wanderers have won the FA cup six times while Dial Square haven't even played in the FA cup. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and Queens Park Rangers should be the only London team. Renerpho (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unai Emery, the greatest Arse-nal F C manager of all time. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 09:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider a redirect to EFL League Two. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 09:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arsenal FC is a common redirect to Arsenal F.C.. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2020 (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 the war ended. (non-admin closure) epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Zanzibar War

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

Only 38 to 45 minutes long. My dinner takes longer than that, but we don't have a page titled "Epicgenius's dinner".^{[April Fools!]} epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 42 (number) as that is The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The war wasn't long enough for notability.
Create Epicgenius's dinner. -insert valid name here- (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did take place between 09:02–09:40 EAT, which I suppose would be dinnertime for me. Because breakfast is dinner. epicgenius (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2020 (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. April Fools is over (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelback

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

LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH. EVERY TIME I DO IT MAKES ME LAUGH! Delete per WP:GARAGE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You should take a look at this graph. MadameButterflyKnife yeah sure.talk 02:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not like you to say sorry if you delete it. Koridas (Speak) 14:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I want at least a dime back for listening to them. epicgenius
Transwiki to Commons so you can LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 14:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Have you checked if the photograph is available under a free license? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per No one cares about your garage band. ⌚️ (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fools or redirect to somewhere, no one knows where. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Hut

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

Domino's is so much better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we can. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Au contrair, TenPoundHammer. No one outpizzas the Hut. JOE BRO 64 02:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Domino's Pizza. No one shall go to Pizza Hut ever again. -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 12:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Papa Johns because their pizzas are better^{[citation needed]}. –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bah! Humbug! to corporate pizza places, the mom & pop place my girlfriend works at has better pizza. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To McDonald's because I'm not McLoving Pizza Hut. Koridas (Speak) 16:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either McDonald's, McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Pizza Hut! Wait... Foxnpichu (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Domino's gives... stomach issues. Little Caesar's is great, though! — Gestrid (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fools. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bloomberg

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

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

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

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

Why these candidates have to drop out during Super Tuesday? WHY!!! Plus - why this one's dropping too late?

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

All these candidate pages should merge with Joe Biden's:

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

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

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

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

-- No 3rd turns, vote 4 Burns #ChairmanXiFoolery #GenHongKongProtestersFoolery (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:BURN. #FeelTheBern! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Biden: He's the closest to neutral. WIkipedia must be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can I Log In (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all with Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign or Joe Biden -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 04:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move all to Name (politician); they are no longer primary. HotdogPi 12:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. These political AfDs are getting old. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:15, 1 April 2020 (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 Pang. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

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

Pong! Ping! Pong! Ping! Pong! Ping! (Pong!) 01:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Yes, That Will (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pong MadameButterflyKnife yeah sure.talk 02:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pong (video game) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Game Over: Redirected, couldn't move the ping pong, died. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 03:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iTunes Ping. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to consider nominating {{ping}} for deletion. A a s i m 07:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pong per MadameButterfly. Gimubrc (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Pong Dede2008 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Despite Ping committing a lot of crimes, he has saved us all precious time. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW... (PorkchopGMX) (t - c) 17:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for a zero latency internet! En2que (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote keep but I lagged out. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 22:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping - Ping the creator of the article. Koridas (Speak) 22:32, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fools. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XFL (2020)

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

What's this? No scramble for the ball? No Jesse Ventura as commentator? No cheerleaders? No He Hate Me? No XTREME team names? This is NOT the XFL, it's just some lame and toned-down imitation that fails miserably at being it. It must be deleted so that the XFL name not be tainted. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

Revive: It actually has hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can I Log In (talk • contribs)

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 redirect to Boeing 747. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A380

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

It has sadly been proven that the plane is too big and too expensive to be operated economically. And now with Airbus announcing that production of the plane will end next year, it is perhaps but appropriate that we ground our article on our favorite gentle giant for similar reasons. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Airbus planes. If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going. Sounder Bruce 02:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because pollution is bad. Koridas (Speak) 03:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Too big; cannot fit in my computer. userdude 05:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because airplanes are useless right now. Renerpho (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goofily large aircraft are a key prophecy about the end times. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bankrupt all airlines and destroy the Airbus. Donald Trump is making his own airline. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW... (PorkchopGMX) (t - c) 13:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uranus because that is the obvious choice. Or prehaps 42 (number) as that is the Answer to Life, Universe and Everything. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (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 redirect all to Geometry Dash. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Square

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

This should be deleted as it is WP:POINTY ^[4-1]-KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Triangle. See this link to know why. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also propose to delete these articles for the same reason. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circle the square pointiness solved. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be easier to maintain the article and find the root of the problem. One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 16:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all shapes from existence. The square and all other shapes with points are too WP:POINTY and the circle and all other curves are too WP:CIRCULAR. Q.E.D. 2147 in Tibet, so they get Star Trek first, Pianostar9 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC

Merge Antiquated model to New Square, the parent article and other antiquated model. StonyBrook (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2020 (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.

^{[April Fools!]}

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 April Fools. Conspiracies can come true... (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finland (2nd nomination)

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

It's all fake, Have you seen the facts? Wake UP! Yes, That Will (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patrick Star. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sweden. 'Cause they have the best mafia, the best Eurovision entries, and the best failed Eurovision entry about Carpool Karaoke. --#ChairmanXiFoolery #GenHongKongProtestersFoolery (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with New Zealand. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Aotearoa! (or can I...)--#ChairmanXiFoolery #GenHongKongProtestersFoolery (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 05:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to West Russia. Majavah ^(t/c) 11:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Annex - To expand America. Koridas (Speak) 16:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perkele per WP:OM. Gimubrc (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Consider deletion of Australia as well. G1217 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Estonia, for they have the singing festival, and a similar language. KaptaşHero (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fools. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL 08

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)

People need to realize there's only one sports game that deserves recognition! I'll show them! I'll show them all! Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College Hoops. It's awesome, baby! O.N.R. ^(talk) 02:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the last place I'd expect a Scott the Woz reference, but I'm not complaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortex128 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Put In The Space Time Continuum Bag and kill Madden 09. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW... (PorkchopGMX) (t - c) 04:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everybody has a right to Madden! Just ask the Madden 3DS community, those guys get it! Almy (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, all Scott here! One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 15:38, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fools. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 20–25 light-years

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

Hopelessly WP:POV title implicitly assumes the sol system is the only place anybody would be interested in measuring distance from. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:18, 1 April 1996 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery's talk page link is unusually prescient today. --Izno (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 1 April 1999 (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 MISSEDTHEJO. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Launch System

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

A complete and utter waste of time and money. Just bin it or merge it to Falcon Heavy. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just because something Is a complete waste of time and Money, It Shouldn't be Systematically deletED. The SLS sHould be kEpt. That's Just nOt in any of Wikipedia's policies. NASA clearly is still building it [79]. OkayKEnji ^{(talk page)} 08:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Too Soon Projects of that magnitude can't be cancelled unless at least 25 years have elapsed. We don't delete James Webb Space Telescope for the same reason, at least not before 2021. Renerpho (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy the rocket per nom. Falcon Heavy and New Glenn are enough for the Artemis program. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at school} _{wash your shirt} ^{to be killed by coronavirus} 10:01, 1 April 2020 (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 result was MISSEDTHEJO. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it is IMISSEDTHEJOKE. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 09:47, 3 April 2020 (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 redirect ... somewhere. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus

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

AfDs for this article:

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

For the past few years, people have been !voting Redirect to Uranus on various April Fools' AfDs. As such, this joke has been run into the ground. The only logical remedy is to delete the would-be redirect target. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uranus. That is the obvious solution to the problem.

However if that is not suitable for you, I would consider redirecting to Neptune or Saturn.-KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Your anus. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neptune. Uranus is just a ripoff of Neptune anyways. Almy (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; far be it from me to defy tradition. Gimubrc (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Annex - to expand America. Koridas (Speak) 16:51, 1 April 2020 (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 on. Underrated word in this discussion. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel

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

So Willy doesn't have any to be on. Linguist111^talk 01:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinvent and redirect to Main Page. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WP:WILLY. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 09:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CIRCULAR and to prevent a WP:WHEELWAR. HotdogPi 12:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete Possible per WP:DENY. Gimubrc (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to April Mop. Dede2008 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:OTHERSTUFF; we have an article on tire so we may as well have one for wheel. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wheels on wheels. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:04, 1 April 2020 (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 nominate at FfD. Duh. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 1

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

Totally unnecessary page, probably should be redirected to the Main Page-KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We must find this mysterious Log/2020 April 1 page everyone keeps talking about. Ionmars10 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2020 (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 happiness. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evil

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

Did you hear that Barnacle Boy? There's evil afoot! We must get in the Invisible Boatmobile and defeat the EVIIIIIIIIIIIIL! Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy Unite! Mermaid Man (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - This article is evil because it is about being evil. Peace out, Koridas (Speak) 00:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Eggman. JOE BRO 64 11:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2020 (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 Convicted, pending sysopping, and pending disqualification. (non-admin closure) {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 00:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Can I Log In

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

Do not delete this page. I meant to put this at Articles for Creation, but it turned out it got redirected. So please participate at RfDA. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 00:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy It as a page that is obviously trying to subvert the ruling of the cabal. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fool's is over. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 02:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BanG Dream!

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

As a loyal and dedicated Love Live! fan, it sickens me that this upstart franchise is stealing our beloved franchise's fans. We must delete the BanG Dream! menace from existence and return Love Live! to its rightful place at the top of the idol franchise food chain. ~~Kasumi and Lisa still best girls though.~~ ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as flick notes suck and round buttons are more readable. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 04:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fleeting Keep (not sure if the fleeting joke works) - BanG Dream! is clearly superior to Love Live, which is a franchise that must know its place. Instead of having idols who just sing and dance, BanG Dream girls are in bands, which is much better than this idol group stuff. Also, it has better ships and Baby Shark. As Love Live fans, you should be turning your attention towards the real evil, IDOLM@ASTER. I mean, hell, the two franchises have both got idols! Roniius (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (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 Restock. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch

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

It's always out of stock, therefore Wikipedia should do the same and not list the article until there's new stock. Either that or we temporarily redirect our potential shoppers to Wii U. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smash - Smash the article. Koridas (Speak) 00:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The smash must be performed by Mario or Pikachu or it isn't valid. It must then be redirected to Super Smash Bros. Pianostar9 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alternatively, Hulk can perform it since his other name is Hulk Smash. However, Nintendo doesn't approve since it can only be found on 3DS. ^[1]Pianostar9 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restock ANNNNNND THEY'RE GONE! Better luck next time! Yes, That Will (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restock ANNNNNND THEY'RE GONE! Better luck next time! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restock - Third time lucky? Nope, THEY'RE GONE! Better luck next time! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hack using CVE-2018-6242 - Give the patched consoles to the n00bs that don't care. Pianostar9 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't restock, leave the article, but add a redirect to Wii U Pianostar9 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Space Hulk for Wii U - Nintendo Game Details". www.nintendo.com. Retrieved 2020-04-01.

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 April Fool's is over. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 02:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Kubrick

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

Time to settle the infobox issue once and for all. Anyone seeking information on Kubrick can just look elsewhere on the internet.^{[April Fools!]} Ionmars10 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NUKE - While nuking the article, start waving your hat and scream WOOHOO!. Koridas (Speak) 00:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will fix it. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to So-called moon landing, which doesn't have an infobox and won't need one until we actually get there. Opencooper (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2020 (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 Move to somewhere. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flybe

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

Flybe is FlyMaybe no more as they're done. Now let's clip its article of its wings too. Nominating the following articles for the same reason:

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

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

^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Flyisn't. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to NotFlyBe. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FlyBye (or FlyByeBye). –Davey2010^Talk 14:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to International Airlines Group so they have financial support and can fly again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerfan0 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 April 2020 (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 Il n’y a pas de consensus. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 21:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French language

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/French language

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

Ce 1 avril je vais vous frapper tous avec un poisson et une truite mouillés jusqu'à midi. Linguist111^talk 00:25, 1 avril 2020 (UTC)

Non merci, et je vais vous expliquer pourquoi:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed tempor et de vitalité, de sorte que le travail et la douleur, certaines choses importantes à faire eiusmod. Au fil des ans, je viendrai, qui nostrud aliquip hors de son l'avantage de l'exercice, de sorte que les efforts de relance si le district scolaire et la longévité. Vous voulez être une douleur dans le cillum de cupidatat a été critiqué dans le Duis et dolore magna fuyez ne produit aucun plaisir résultant. Excepteur cupidatat noirs ne sont pas excepteur, est apaisante pour l'âme, qui est, ils ont déserté les devoirs généraux de ceux qui sont responsables de vos problèmes.
Chat réservoir de développeurs de prix. enceinte clinique Non par le matériel. Nullam Varius pas, pour sale et profiter du carquois, HNE eros bibendum elit, sollicitudin Mauris nec luctus gros chat. nibh Performance entier enceinte. Et le rire de vulputate vehicula Duis Tellus ac. Carton jusqu'à ce que le rire du développeur. Même le temps. Pour ordinateur portable, le football réservé à la planification, la performance d'arachide est laid, que tincidunt qu'un sourire. Mécène, ma photographie d'échauffement. Jusqu'à la fermentation. Malesuada l'un de mes enfants. Duis sapien ETM, aliquet nec, commodo eget, adipiscing sed, non plus. Certains développeurs de mâchoires qui a été les bananes, les joueurs de football de premier cycle sapien, mais les entrepreneurs ont besoin de diam Malesuada. Demain chocolat doux maintenant. Pas d'alcool. Le dernier développement. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet dictum, le prix et, à moins que. Aenean magna NISL, mollis quis, molestie eu, dans feugiat, ennuyé. Le refinancement.
vallée clinique financement Mauris boisson enceinte, laid joueurs Mauris, mais le bien immobilier lui-même, mais le rire du pot. La région de la vallée depuis le début. Les clients de chat gratuit qui ne sont pas membres de triste. Les données du réservoir. Malheureusement, l'immobilier est toujours végétarien. Le refinancement. Besoin matériel d'urgence diam. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, le lac est ligula molestie metus, non feugiat Orci magna ac ETM. Jusqu'à ce que laid. Malheureusement, la peur de la vie. football triste ou début de football. Quisque primigeste sapien pas la chose même. Le lacus de Proin, le chocolat de la vie, à un élément, lobortis ac, que. Le Japon a été quelques rires. Le refinancement. Il est également important de diamètre. Matériel recommandé. Stress maintenant. Toujours boire gratuitement.
Ainsi, convertir pour définir la redirection d'article de concept large d'index. — Plâtre47 ^{(page utilisateur | contributions |}

essais), at 00:35, 1 avril 2020 (UTC)

Poisson d'avril.

Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Système ^{d'exploitation invalide}_parler 00:42, 1 avril 2020 (UTC)

Le Québec est la seule vraie langue de Wikipédia. N'oppressons pas la belle langue québécoise! génieépique (discuter) 1 avril 2020 à 03:04 (CEST)
Supprimer, j’ai dû utiliser un traducteur pour écrire cela de sorte qu’il est évidemment composé. (Translated with Bing) A a s i m 07:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Latin as a POV fork. And what's all this gibberish above me? — Bilorv (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Paris French per Linguistic prescription: no reliable source can tell what happens in the landwaste outside the Périphérique. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:53, 1 April 2020 (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 redirect to Shakira. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Kinomoto

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

It's Sakura's birthday today! Happy Birthday Sakura! Let's celebrate by deleting her article!

Also including the following pages:

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

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

^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You can't delete this! Sakura has her invincible spell! Koridas (Speak) 00:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sakura (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle); pretty sure CLAMP just cloned her from that character. ^{Opencooper (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2020 (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 Rest in Peace Kobe Bryant. April Fool's is over (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calabasas, California

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

I will never not be upset. Can we just reverse time?

Also nominating the following article:

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

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For Kobe. Koridas (Speak) 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For Kobe. -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 13:26, 1 April 2020 (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 Time travel to 2018. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 02:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 NBA season

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

I'm still upset that my beloved Warriors won't be able to avenge their heartbreaking loss to the Raptors last season... Let's just quarantine this season and forget it all happened. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because soccer is better. Koridas (Speak) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to last good version because we want Kobe back. Actually, just kick Rudy Gobert off, since he rubbed all the microphones. Thanks a lot, Rudy.^{[April Fools!]} epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2020 (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 time's arrow flies relentlessly. As the Wikipedians screeched, looking to banish the horrible year, the year continued on its inexorable path, bringing us all one step closer to oblivion. ~ mazca ^talk 01:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020

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

It's only April and this year has already been a disaster. Let's delete this entire year and pretend it never happened. Social distancing necessary too. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which in turn will redirect to Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in April 2020. My rationale is as per the news. Its only coverage of 2020 is in the context of the pandemic. Only. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel we should delete this year as I don't like it. All hail Armok (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You stole my joke! :( Ionmars10 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have to write about the future, not the past or the present. Koridas (Speak) 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RIPKOBE —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This year has a virus in it. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeted and Deleted All this sad news just... Doesn't stop coming. Yes, That Will (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TRASH CAN BANISHMENT Awful year, ban who ever did this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeofthething (talk • contribs) 01:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2019. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coronavirus killed people, Kobe died, World War 3 almost started, Australia had a whole bunch of wildfires, and everybody hates Greta Thunberg for no reason. Koridas (Speak) 02:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Trumperor says all of the aforementioned things are hoaxes, and it would be unpatriotic to question the president. Khemehekis (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Khemehekis, or is it? Koridas (Speak) 04:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koridas You're right, it is not really Khemehekis! I have been fraped by my housemate Cilantrohead! Khemehekis (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's pretty much over. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename 2020 (number) and remove all references to the calendar year. Renerpho (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & rename the redlink - given the current rate of escalation of shit events, I don't see any reason to think we'll make it past April. As such, scrap the whole thing, as it's got all the flaws of crystal balling. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. We can do better the second time around. — Bilorv (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also delete 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, Brexit, and global warming. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We should just start over. Someone please activate the time machine. Firestarforever (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can we scan this year with a anti-virus software maybe that will fix it?~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BEANS. 2020 just gives people bad ideas. Rua (mew) 12:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2019 2. You guys didn't see the news? There's no such thing as 2020. 2019 just got a sequel. JOE BRO 64 13:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rearrange to 2002 so we have 18 years to make revisions. Gimubrc (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timewarp back to the noughties where everything was so much better lol. –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Please take me back to 2019. Roniius (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heat death of the universe. Anything is better than this pile of steaming goomba.
Honestly, per Davey. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerfan0 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Throw into pond

Whack!

You've been collectively whacked with a hover of wet trouts.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you and some others did something silly.

Strong delete, salt, and blowtorch it ⌚️ (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are still 8 months left, which is plenty of time for the year to get better. MorphinBrony (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Skip to 2021 ― Re_a^l_C^yGuy - ^Talk? 22:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of recentism. Give it five years or so, and maybe then we can think about writing an article on it. Margalob (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--It has been a good maple sap season.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2020 (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 Citation needed ^{[citation needed]} (non-admin closure) A a s i m 21:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:citation needed

AfDs for this article:

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

Totally unnecessary template. ^{[citation needed]}^[4-1] -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close – Please renominate at WP:TFD,^{[clarification needed]} or else redirect to the mainspace page citation needed.^{[dubious – discuss]} ComplexRational (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 04:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)c[reply]

Citation needed ^{[citation needed]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^{[dubious – discuss]} — J947 ^{(dubious | — | discuss)}, at 00:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per ComplexRational. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed^{[citation needed]}^{[citation needed]}^{[citation needed]}{{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 04:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed^{[citation needed]}^{^{[citation needed]}^{^{[dubious – discuss]}}} All hail Armok (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[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 SLAP.

You've been whacked with a WikiMinnow..

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you might have done something silly.

(non-admin closure) A a s i m 21:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George S. Patton slapping incidents

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

SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP. SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP (SLAP) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SLAP CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TROUT SLAP All hail Armok (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been BOMBED!! KABOOM!

SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP. SLAP (SLAP) 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

? TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 01:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SLAP (aka trout) creator. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 01:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whack with a wet trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now... the Fish-Slapping Dance. HalfHeartedFanatic (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHACK Homeofthething (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this page as the article it refers to contains extreme violence. Meanwhile I had my user page reverted, despite it only containing references to Beer, Windows XP, a random small airport in America and Edward Khil. Actually, on second thought, I believe the name of a deceased singer was disrespectful, but still. I didn't even get a proper explanation. 17:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been collectively whacked with a hover of wet trouts.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you and some others did something silly.

SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP. SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP. SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP SLAP. SLAP (SLAP) 18:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slap per WP:SLAP. Gimubrc (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2020 (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 Delete. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Park

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

I don't like the show. There is way too much cursing and offensive jokes. ^{[April Fools!]} Koridas (Speak) 23:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CENSOR we all know that Wikipedia isn't censo-- lol who am I kidding as a member of the Censor's Cabal I hereby declare this page censored.^{[April Fools!]} CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Simpsons, the superior show. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I love it when they slap our ~~president~~ emperor. --#ChairmanXiFoolery #GenHongKongProtestersFoolery (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for me. AFKHaiDang (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Images of children. Khemehekis (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! –Davey2010^Talk 13:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - This page obviously needs to be moved to Commons. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep oh my god! You want to kill south park! Jcoolbro (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2020 (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 Cancelled. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E3 2020

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

The event is cancelled, therefore it is also in our best interest to also cancel our article about this now non-existent event. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - History is garbage. We need to start writing about the future. Koridas (Speak) 00:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (E3it conflict) as a blatant hoax per nom. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, those guys smell like what cold pizza tastes. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Half-Life 3 confirmed —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Half- Life 2 confirmed. Internet Explorer (talk) 1 April 2020 (UTC) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They let us down. We need revenge. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2020 (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 Ask Spiderman. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 21:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos

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

And I am, Iron Man. SuperXpert (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanos did nothing wrong. Also, make sure to remove the if you make another April Fool's entry. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly half of the article. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 23:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keete - half keep, half delete. Linguist111^talk 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to coronavirus. They both make us not feel so good. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete at the same time. Perfectly balanced, as everything should be. epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snap I don't feel so good Mr. Wales... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We don't really have a choice; we either delete this or half of all articles. userdude 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @UserDude: I say all of the WP:FOOTY articles should be deleted in part of that half. Glaceon (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, citing this MadameButterflyKnife yeah sure.talk 00:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This is better -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 12:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete half, keeping the balance. Roniius (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with dust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Blue Hat (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was right! ⌚️ (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (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 too late to keep. (non-admin closure) 7 successful entries. 5 failed. Not very great at jokes (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 01:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Summer Olympics

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

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

WP:BALL. Totally too soon. (Am I too early to nominate for April Fools?) --#ChairmanXiFoolery #GenHongKongProtestersFoolery (#GenUnstoppableFoolery) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the 2020 Olympics will not happen again (unless if we look in the past). Have to go to 88 miles per hour to stop the cancellation of the 2020 Olympics. On a side note, yes, you are a little early for April Fools Day, so hold your horses. So am I :D A a s i m 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they pass NFOOTY, like most articles. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I lost at the Olympics once and now I hate it. Cancel all of them! epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can it be the 2020 Olympics if it's going to happen in 2021? This is a space-time conundrum that must be fixed immediately! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2021 Summer Olympics as it sounds better. Glaceon (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Olympic station TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 01:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC. Non-notable musician that will never be notable. Delete fast. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone: It' meets WP:GNG {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 03:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such thing as 2020 Summer Olympics exists. Maybe it existed few weeks ago but right now, it doesn't exist. Jake The Great! | 📞 talk 05:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Olympics will absolutely take place this year. The "postponement" is just a ploy Tajikistani trolls to prevent everyone else from showing up so that they'll sweep the trophies. Sdkb (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 1940 Summer Olympics. Renerpho (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fake news.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If only because the Olympics will ruin my sleep, being in Japan. I don't want to lose sleep regarding its article too. igordebraga ≠ 16:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all we know, it may be delayed for OVER 9,000 years. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2021 Summer Olympics as that will be when it takes place. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email})

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 it's an Encyclopedia. (non-admin closure) {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 00:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Entirety of Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Entirety of Wikipedia

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

Unreliable, tertiary source. Delete as per WP:NOTSOURCE. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 23:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource, which should then transwiki itself to itself... again and again. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Should be at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Special:AllPages. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural error You didn't go to the "Delete Wikipedia" noticeboard first so this should be a bureacratic close. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blow all of it up with WP:TNT. (edit conflict) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Citizendium. They need all the help they need now that they're pretty much out of active users. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: You unpatriotic person. Ratify the constitution. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 03:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing Admin: This vote should be disregarded because there is a RfDA for this user. Renerpho (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I am the closing admin. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 01:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all (including any subpages) to Special:AllPages, per WP:ATD. WP:SOURCE violations are less likely with everything at the same URL, and the title (AllPages, not ListOfAllPages) already suggests this is what it contains. Peter James (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of it is about stuff that I don't like, or that is completely irrelevant to me. I can steal the rest and publish it as a book. Renerpho (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I like winning, but sadly Wikipedia is not about winning. Time to delete and make Wikipedia GREAT AGAIN. We need the new Wikipedia to win so much we may even get tired of winning!!.^{[April Fools!]} --Dps04 (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Children. They will have Wikipedia after we are gone.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2020 (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 unpersoned. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Goldstein

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

Per WP:INGSOC. rectify crimethink doublespeedwise. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleplus delete crimethink. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doublespeedwise delete and issue Template:uw-cabal1 doublespeedwise. Crimethink. Invalid ^OS _talk 00:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
bb dayorder rectify ref unperson doublespeedwise. luv bb. Gimubrc (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doublespeedwise delete. Unpersons unbellyfeel Ingsoc. MorphinBrony (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Big Brother Jay Goldstein from the Ministry of Love. StonyBrook (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2020 (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 Ask the elder. (non-admin closure) TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 06:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You

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

You are unhealthy for the environment! Do the earth a favor, join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and nominate yourself for deletion today! VHEMT (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Move to Hell. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW... (PorkchopGMX) (t - c) 00:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to villain for obvious reasons, though this is the wrong venue. Further discussion should take place at TfD per Template the regulars. — You 😈 ^{(usable? | continuable? | eccentricable?)}, at 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G7. God (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Evolve because if we get smarter, maybe we can fix it. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soulja Boy^[1] —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to You Watanabe, the only You that is relevant to Us. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G10. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 01:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beauty. Ionmars10 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.metrolyrics.com/crank-dat-soulja-boy-lyrics-soulja-boy.html

Speedy Delete NOW! Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of recently extinct mammals. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: You are the truth, I am just an illusion. --Titodutta (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC
Redirect to Me, which in-turn is a redirect to I. → Jake The Great! | 📞 talk 05:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be asking the damn questions, old man. Who are you? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PRONOUN. Peter James (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2020 (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:Village pump

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 redirect to List of Digimon. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon

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

Way too many, there should only be eight Pokemon which should be Eevee and his evolutions. Glaceon (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Digimon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though this is an April Fools AFD, my !vote is serious. We are not Bulbapedia. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate Pokèmon. Note the diacritics. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split into individual articles about every single Pokémon. It was better the way it was. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate A Pokémon ate my son. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokédex per WP:COMMONNAME. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but disagree with Glaceon on the Eevee comment. There should be seventeen Pokémon articles: Eevee, Jolteon, Flareon, Vaporeon, Umbreon, Espeon, Leafeon, Glaceon, Sylveon, Neon, Peon, Galleon, Nickelodeon, Simoleon, Pigeon, Dungeon, and Melungeon. Khemehekis (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remake and get rid of the national dex. Obviously. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Obviously every Pokemon in existence needs an article. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2020 (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 delete as planned out (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:db

AfDs for this article:

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

This page needs to be speedy deleted per WP:CSD A a s i m 01:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD. That's what the template says anyway -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:27, 1 April 2020 (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 Wrong venue. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cabals

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

This page should be deleted as There Is No Cabal. All hail Armok (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to consider myself a cabal. Jake The Great! | 📞 talk 06:11, 1 April 2020 (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 Ask Jimbo. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia administrators

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

Let's get rid of all Wikipedia administrators!^{[April Fools!]} GZWDer (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop, they block literally everyone, and they do not even see the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit on the main page A a s i m 02:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blow up with WP:TNT. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and promote all of us to adminship. Make Wikipedia GREAT AGAIN!^{[April Fools!]}--Dps04 (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with this song playing in the background. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would rather have this song play. -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 13:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MegaGoat this is the best song ever]. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA, you have spawned a war -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 14:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MegaGoat hands down this is the best. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA now i am certain this will never end -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 15:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MegaGoat, nope it will never end ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA our work is never overrr -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 15:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MegaGoat, nope never. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA this is getting out of hand -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 16:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MegaGoat, it's time to stop. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay CAPTAIN MEDUSA -Mega Goat^{Contribs | April Fools Day 🤡} 16:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, they reverted my user page to pre-April Fools without warning (I believe it is to do with naming a brand of beer or naming a deceased singer, can't tell which.) Computerfan0 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revenge delete. Payback time! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I consider this a declaration of war. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Send to the Croatian WP. Have a good time!--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2020 (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. April Fools is over (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing: New Horizons

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

During social distancing time against COVID-19, I love this game because of these cute thang, but we'd better focus on eradication of the virus due to the ongoing COVID-19 event^{[April Fools!]}--TILRs (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Replace with Pokémon. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 05:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - It's not Minecraft, so we have to delete it per WP:MINE. Koridas (Speak) 06:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Donate to Blathers just to see the look on his face when he sees that shiny new bug we just found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Doom Eternal. MorphinBrony (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sell it to Tom Nook if he will pay any reasonable amount of bells for it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but make sure you save. Don't wanna piss off Resetti! — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Blue Hat (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (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 this was a fake AfD nomination. (non-admin closure) {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 00:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake news

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL HOW CAN WE FND SOURCES WHEN THE NEWS ARE WP:FAKE???)

Because it is fake! WP:FAKE Jake The Great! | 📞 talk 05:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G3. Koridas (Speak) 06:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real News F.C. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 06:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously a hoax. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fake ― Re_a^l_C^yGuy - ^Talk? 17:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and WP:SALT per WP:G3. Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge News into this article. ALL NEWS IS FAKE! — FakeNews ^{(we | support | Trump!)}, at 23:30, 1 April 2020 (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 hay consenso. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Español

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

No puedo a hablar español. Wikipedia no es para cosas hechas un día.^[4-1] A a s i m 07:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify to Eswiki. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 07:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Português. Renerpho (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete porque no lo me gusta. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:32, 1 April 2020 (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 Trouted. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout

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

I think we need to {{trout}} the creators of that page.^{[April Fools!]} A a s i m 07:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I am at it:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

A a s i m 07:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trout to stop it from being used. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trout per WP:TROUT, with some WP:SALT on the side. Gimubrc (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2020 (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 Fire. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Brandenburg Airport

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

Because it is cheaper to tear it down and build it from scratch.[81]^{[April Fools!]} Renerpho (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demolish per WP:TNT. Rua (mew) 12:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an airport fire is very unlikely. Why do we even need a working fire suppression system? GoodCrossing (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2020 (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 involved snow set index-ify. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

《ARTICLENAME》

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)

No reason at all TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 09:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

《VOTETYPE》 Gimubrc (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.. Koridas (Speak) 14:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'《WITTYJOKE》'One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 18:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder neutral — 《PlaceHolder》 ^{(until | April | 2)}, at 23:37, 1 April 2020 (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. April Fools is over (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lutetium

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

Delete because of the lack of applications for it and because it is too similar to the other lanthanides. ^{[April Fools!]} KaptaşHero (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WHOCARES. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lutetium does have multiple applications, it could be used in refineries and to create compounds such as Lutetium tantalate that are used with x-rays. Not to mention it is crucial for understanding molecular and quantum chemistry and materials science and for the completion of the periodic table. On the other hand, if you want to delete something that is way too similar to other things and has no practical applications, I would suggest string theory as the 10²⁷²⁰⁰⁰ string theories are too similar to each other and make no physical predictions whatsoever. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uranus. Because when in doubt, Uranus. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 12:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a member of WP:ELEM, I can confidently say that it's a WP:CONTENTFORK of rare earth metal (they're all the same, trivalent and not actually "rare", right?). ComplexRational (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uranium or Uranus because always redirecting to Uranus is getting old. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:25, 1 April 2020 (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 Deletion DIscussion which would Delete the Deletion DIscussion which would Delete the Deletion DIscussion which would Delete the Deletion DIscussion which would Delete the Deletion DIscussion. (non-admin closure) {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 01:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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)

Let's push the recursion. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:01, 1 April 2020 (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/2020 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately there has been a deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion of the creation of the deletion. But I vote delete because of how nonsensical it is. Koridas (Speak) 15:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like it never happened. on a side note, this joke is getting a bit stale, so... maybe don't go any deeper than this? A a s i m 17:01, 1 April 2020 (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. April Fool's is over (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bielefeld

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

I believe this is Wikipedia's longest-standing hoax. Bielefeld is simply not real. — Bilorv (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because we didn't delete Fake News. Renerpho (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the conspiracy as a valid search term. — ConspiracySearchTerm ^{(Bielefeld | = | hoax)}, at 23:33, 1 April 2020 (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 more war. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War

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)

Should be deleted per WP:PEACE and the Preamble to the United Nations Charter.^{[April Fools!]} KaptaşHero (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per that one song. Koridas (Speak) 16:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, boys, we did it. War is no more. One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 18:20, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fool's is over. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children

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

So that people can stop saying "Think of the children!^{[April Fools!]} Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 12:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adult so nobody has to be a child any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerfan0 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-also, Redirect Love to Children, and include Human behavior#Weather and climate on the See Also section for Children.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2020 (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 April Fool's is over. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Log

AfDs for this article:

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

Why are logs important? Delete. Invalid ^OS _talk 16:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, there's this stupid non-deletion nomination page in the way of putting this in the correct place. Might as well delete that. Invalid ^OS _talk 16:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ln, we do not want any more trees cut down before earth day! A a s i m 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raise all by the power of their base to remove all of them. Problem solved! -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are on the way to destruction per WP:NCR. Gimubrc (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna huff, and I'm gonna puff, and I'm gonna blow this whole exponential house down! epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2020 (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 Get a Mac. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windows

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

My mom uses macOS.^[4-1] A a s i m 16:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Linux per WP:JUSTDOIT Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2020 (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 Blue Screen of Death. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

macOS

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

I use Windows.^[4-1] A a s i m 16:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ILIKEIT. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:00, 1 April 2020 (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] "Researcher predicts cooler climate in Northern Hemisphere from 2015 - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun". web.archive.org. 2013-11-22. Retrieved 2020-04-01.

[2] Kerr, Richard A. (1994-09-09). "Climate Modeling's Fudge Factor Comes Under Fire". Science. 265 (5178): 1528–1528. doi:10.1126/science.265.5178.1528. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17801523.

[3] "Climate modeler exposes the lie in climate change scare". The Manila Times. Retrieved 2020-03-23.

[4] Contributed. "LETTER: Climate change yes, extremism no | The Telegram". www.thetelegram.com. Retrieved 2020-03-23.

[5] "IPRC News, New IPRC Staff, Mototaka Nakamura" (PDF). web.archive.org. 2010-06-10. Retrieved 2020-04-03.

[6] "Space Hulk for Wii U - Nintendo Game Details". www.nintendo.com. Retrieved 2020-04-01.

[7] ttps://www.metrolyrics.com/crank-dat-soulja-boy-lyrics-soulja-boy.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fedor Belogai}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Khonin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alena Raeva}}