Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 1

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, contributions) 05:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darunnajath Islamic Complex

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

Non-notable Islamic seminary linked with an another non-notable Islamic seminary, Darul Huda Islamic University. MalayaliWoman (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real defining features that would make it notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find any third-party sources at all. Huon (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2019 (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 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muza (singer)

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

None of the sources show notability. Sources 8-16 (out of 16 sources) are iTunes, source 7 is Instagram. Coverage falls short of requirements under notability guidelines and fails WP:SINGER. Released a self produced album. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what is defined as "notability"? Because according to Wikipedia:CCS it makes a credible claim of significance and would not need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. UserNumber (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @UserNumber: whether the article needs a fundamental rewrite (G11) or makes a credible claim of significance (A7) doesn't matter because this is not a CSD nomination. The concept of "notability" is outlined at the notability policy, the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for musicians. – Teratix ₵ 23:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix: see [1] :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now why there could be confusion, but the point stands. – Teratix ₵ 23:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable singer; there is a dearth of independent, persistent coverage in reliable sources, including news outlets and the relevant literature; what remains are blogs, itunes, social media and download platforms. All of which comprehensively fails the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Analysis of cited sources:
- dissdash.com and musicalnoize.com are obscure sites that have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking, don't have the characteristics of reliable sources.
- youredm.com is also fairly obscure (no Wikipedia article and not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) but lists an editor-in-chief. The one time it was considered at WP:RSN, the evaluation was "leaning unreliable" and the comment was "They have an established staff, but virtually none of them any any sort of credentials other than 'loving music' or 'listing where they live or grow up'. Seems like more of a fan/enthusiast group."
- thedjlist.com appears to be a press release. The site positions itself as a place for "DJs and industry professionals" to promote themselves. The one time it was considered at WP:RSN, the evaluation was "undecided" and the comment was "Their About Us page states they've been around for two decades, but it was difficult to see any sort of staff list, editorial policy, credentials, or anything like that."
- instagram and iTunes are reliable sources for "you can listen/buy song X" on instagram/iTunes, but they are not independent, and do nothing to establish notability.
- The two Nadia Ali pieces on BBC Asian Network are primary source interviews where Muza teases and then launches his album. Promotion is not the route to notability.
- Jago News 24 contains a single relevant sentence, "Bangladeshi descent, expatriate artist Muza gave voice to the song."

Searches of the usual Google types, EDM magazines DJMag and Mixmag, and Bangladeshi news sources found nothing better. That is not surprising, since his first album was released only this month. Perhaps as his career progresses he will become notable, but at present it's WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2019 (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlay

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. It won an award, but I'm not sure whether that is of any significance. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of secondary sources about the app. Article seems to have been created for promotional purposes as well. Meszzy² (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is more about innovation than about promotion. It was my intention to balance that way. Like the articles about fx. Autocad or all the venues like fx. Mercedes-Benz Arena (Berlin). The project has got another innovation award/grant from an EU foundation, but there are no public references about that yet on their site. It was also my intention to also add some pages about the traditional calculations behind. But the amount of information about Entertainment rigging on Wikipedia is very sparse to non existing. The very basics kind of has to fixed first. So it turned out to be a bigger task, but still in progress. The structure of those few pages makes it very hard to just Extend. So I hope you don't just vote for deletion, but will get back with please try to fix that and that. User talk:Jkr drp —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this user, who is the creator of the article, for likely covert advertising (UPE) and meatpuppetry. Delete, as a promotional article about unremarkable software. MER-C 19:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. The references are published by the people behind the product or dependent secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. ——SerialNumber54129 15:55, 8 April 2019 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dado Hamzagić

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

Fails GNG, and doesn't pass NFOOTY - neither Chigago U-23 or Sarajevo (prior to 2016) satisfy NFOOTY. All the references in the article are dead links. Per my BEFORE doesn't pass GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 3 April 2019 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. T. Murray

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

Probably retired. Chicago Fire U-23 doesn't satisfy NFOOTY. If he actually appeared in Sevilla FC Puerto Rico for 1 match in 2011 that would ostensibly satisfy NFOOTY - however that is not sourced (nor is Chicago for that matter). in my WP:BEFORE I was unable to find much more on this soccer player (though found plenty of other more notable individuals named "Jonathan Murray" - also in football and soccer). In short - WP:SIGCOV is not met, passing NFOOTY is unverified, and even if he did make a single appearance in Puerto Rico that would be only just over the bar and absent sources establishing GNG it should be deleted. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer. Very limited coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2019 (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. "Oppose" presumably = "Keep", and the arguments proffered to do so were more persuasive than the original reason proposed for deltion, viz WP:FORKing, which, in any case, appears to have been effectively withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 16:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World record progression women's weightlifting (1998–2018)

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

I am recommending the following four articles World record progression men's weightlifting, World record progression men's weightlifting (1998–2018), World record progression women's weightlifting and World record progression women's weightlifting (1998–2018) be taken to WP:AFD and deleted as content forks of List of world records in Olympic weightlifting. These four "progression" articles contain only Current records and 1998-2018. The "progression" articles series are missing the 3 articles for men's records (1993-1997 & 1973-1992 & 1920-1972) and 2 articles for women's records (1993-1997 & 1988-1992). The List of world records in Olympic weightlifting already has all of these records. These four "progression" articles need to deleted off of Wikipedia.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose first because even the nominator doesn't know what he is talking about ! these articles are totally different. progression means every single broken record is mentioned in these articles. while the main World Record article only has the last record in each period of time before IWF erasing them all. of course if we had that info I would like to create "progression" page for other time periods but unfortunately they are not available. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You finish the 5 missing articles, User talk:Mohsen1248, then of the content forks. The full info is listed here List of world records in Olympic weightlifting. At least have the full info of the forks listed.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (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/2019 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I SCREWED UP. I am very sorry. I am a good Wikipedia editor though.--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to see these articles built in the future though:

List of world records in powerlifting

Progression of the squat world record

Progression of the deadlift world record

Progression of the snatch world record

Progression of the clean and jerk world record

Progression of the Olympic snatch world record

Progression of the Olympic clean and jerk world record

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Mohsen1248, it is difficult to find proper sources for world records set before the Moscow Olympics in 1980 which means finding the progression (each successive world record set for each lift) is extraordinarily difficult. The IWF (International Weightlifting Federation) website only has record progression from when the website was created in the early 2000's. American media didn't cover weightlifting "heavily" (olympics) until the the LA Olympics in 1984 (coincidentally the Soviet Friendship Games in Varna in 1984 was where all the records were set, and those might have been unofficial fourth attempts), and finding video footage of world championships or european championships from before 1970 is almost impossible. Most news outlets (in Soviet countries which were the most prolific weightlifting countries) don't necessarily have online archives that store that information. Most results books from the Olympics (available at https://digital.la84.org/) have information for Olympics and records set and records at the time but not the competition they were set. I would love if the information was easier and like Mohsen1248 would happily create the new World Record Progression pages, but currently I believe it's a fools errand.

Hamma085 (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2019 (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 Blood Meridian. Sandstein 10:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The kid (Blood Meridian)

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

Not notable outside of the context of the novel. --wooden superman 11:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the parent article Blood Meridian. I think the content in this article would fit well in the parent article and there currently isn't sufficient need for a stand alone article. Gnome de plume (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent article Blood Meridian. I have given this much thought as I would not be surprised if there was academic attention on this particular character. Here is what shows up in Google Scholar. It is hard to separate if there is enough individual coverage for the character though, and unless another editor can prove otherwise, I think all of the analysis could be contained in the article on the book. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic University

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

Non-notable Islamic seminary based on Chemmad, led by Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. Doesn't touch WP:GNG. The seminary doesn't seem to be a degree-awarding university, it appears to provide a high school education, including "secondary" and "senior secondary", according to their website. But the seminary does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or CISCE the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is a recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable. MalayaliWoman (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Admins I would like add the article Darunnajath Islamic Complex to here, I think that also a linked seminary. MalayaliWoman (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be keep Because Darul Huda Islamic University is an accredited university.Nadwi Kooriyad (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are multiple English-language sources, including international ones, that mention and discuss DHIU. I strongly suspect that local sources (in Malayalam) also exist, but I lack the language skills to look for them. University "accredition" is dubious (and not mentioned on the website Nadwi Kooriyad linked to above) since it doesn't award any university-level degrees but relies on its students to get those from an open university, but it does seem to operate as a high school. Huon (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The seminary does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable.MalayaliWoman (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MalayaliWoman, I am aware that someone said so in the previous deletion discussion, but what's the evidence that they don't follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations? Are those the only boards in Kerala, and something not following them is not a high school? DHIU seems to require that its "university" students attend an open university, and I find it difficult to believe that a degree-granting university would accept people without a genuine high school diploma. That said, I disagree with the GNG assessment; the article cites quite a few reliable sources, I know that some additional ones, including more international media coverage, exist but aren't particularly helpful, and that's not even touching Malayalam or Hindi sources which are also likely to exist. Huon (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources analysis by @Huon:, also note the references referred to have been deleted with much else of the article by the edit warring nominator who has added unreferenced non-neutral assertions that are immediately contradicted by the first of the remaining references Atlantic306 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reverted the page to a better-sourced version without the patently false claim of it being a "diploma mill". There seems to be quite a bit of sockpuppetry going on, on both sides. Huon (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources analysis by @Huon: and previous deletion discussions. Csgir (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a legitimate argument for deletion discussions. I have examined the available sources, and it does not seem that the criteria of WP:SIGCOV under WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG is met. Analysis: (i) the Saudi Gazette source is largely WP:PRIMARY, as large chunks of the article include the author quoting or paraphrasing the interviewee, and in that it is at most a second-party source, and therefore cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability; (ii) the Hindu source reads like a press release/churnalism (see WP:PRIMARY), and it probably is one too; (iii) the DHIU source is WP:PRIMARY as well as it is from the school's website; (iv) the second article from Hindu is an obituary of an individual who served as the Pro-Chancellor of the institution, and does not give significant coverage to the institution; (v) the article in the New Indian Express is about a student magazine that makes a transitory reference to the institution. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Per Huon.Saff V. (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually nominated this for deletion back in 2013, for reasons I came to understand were mistaken. I've not seen anything change in the sense of the subject becoming less notable, and the fact that this was nominated by a sockpuppet raises the possibility of bad faith being involved here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep Because the DHIU is an accredited Indian University. 2405:204:D40C:A27A:A491:23F6:6F08:E7B8 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (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 10:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ülo Altermann

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

While technically not a speedy G4 deletion, all the reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ülo Altermann still apply to this article created 3 months after the AfD concluded. Fram (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't remember what this looked like last time around - but my BEFORE prior to my !vote from before still stands, as none of the sources added here this time establish SIGCOV / anything more than 1E. So, I'll just repeat my comment from last time "Poorly sourced (in all wikis). Seems in my BEFORE to be a BIO1E - mainly notable for blowing up a lenin statue. Other than that he was a simple soldier during WWII, and a squad leader in the Forest Brothers. Not much coverage I can see - though I admit I did not BEFORE in Russian.". Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:SOLDIER; sourcing is in passing. Estonian wiki article lists no sources, ru.wiki has some external links that mention the subject and that he was killed in 1953. That's not sufficient for establishing encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (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 10:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FullReader

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

non-notable app with no mention in reliable sources. I suspect this as advertising as the article creator's other edits are mainly regarding adding this app in the see also sections of notable software, and adding non-notable sites as references. Daiyusha (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a non-notable app and it does not cite any reliable sources according to wikipedia's guidelines. RandewP (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks sufficient coverage in reliable independant secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Meszzy² (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current sourcing is problematic - there are reviews on blogs, reviews on sites that openly charge for hosting reviews, trivial coverage in listicles, but nothing that would approach the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. I had a look for better sourcing, but didn't find any. So, fails WP:NCORP, delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~While~~ I agree with your evaluation~~, I note that software falls under WP:GNG and not WP:NCORP, unless the article covers the software's parent company.~~ — Newslinger talk 06:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a talk page discussion, I think Girth Summit's interpretation of WP:NCORP is correct, and FullReader does fall under the scope of WP:NCORP. It's strange that software is held to different notability standards depending on whether it's developed by a corporation/organization or an individual/unknown author, but this appears to be what the guideline indicates. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 8 April 2019 (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 10:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poppermost

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

Non-Notable band with only local coverage. Mccapra (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From a bit of searching there doesn't seem to be any coverage from independent secondary sources, and as such in my opinion fails our notaiblity criteria. Meszzy² (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2019 (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 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike King (fighter)

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Has only one top tier fight which he lost back in ~~1914~~ 2014, 4.5 years ago - see HERE. Fails WP:MMABIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the 1983 birthdate is true, then losing a fight in 1914 would make him a time traveler. Instant notability and he'd be on the cover of Scientific American. Khemehekis (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apologies for the typo mistake. Corrected. It was 2014 instead of 1914. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete. We can't have an article on every mixed martial-arts fighter ever. And athletes (and politicians) already have very loose notability standards on Wikipedia. It seems that when I type a random firstname+lastname into Wikipedia, half the time it's an athlete I've never heard of. Khemehekis (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is clearly not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and as the fighter has not competed in years he is unlikely to ever meet notability requirements, at least for MMA.--Phospheros (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since he hasn't fought in 5 years I think we can assume he's retired. With only 1 top tier fight, a loss, he fails to meet WP:NMMA. I don't see the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2019 (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 John Helder Wedge. Sandstein 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leighland

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

I came accross this article whilst adding co-ordinate data to Tasmanian locations. The property fails to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines as there is no significant coverage of the property in reliable sources (or any other sources (bar retail advertisments) that I could find). Straight Red (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect~~Delete~~ Changing to merge and redirect as per below. It seems it is not the only one of the oldest properties. I found the following:
- "Man Finds Wife's Body In River". The Mercury. Vol. CLXX, no. 24, 627. Tasmania, Australia. 16 November 1949. p. 8. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- "Country Intelligence". The Tasmanian. Vol. XXI, no. 2. Tasmania, Australia. 9 January 1892. p. 32. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- "OBITUARY". Daily Telegraph. Vol. XLI, no. 30. Tasmania, Australia. 4 February 1921. p. 6. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- "Advertising". Launceston Examiner. Vol. XL, no. 290. Tasmania, Australia. 29 November 1880. p. 4. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- "FOR THE MAN ON THE LAND NG H1 RYE GRASS IN PASTURES AT EVANDALE". The Examiner (Tasmania). Vol. CXI, no. 153. Tasmania, Australia. 6 September 1952. p. 11. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/gid/slv-pic-aab33988

but these are all I could find and I think not strong enough to save the article, even though they do directly support some of the current article content. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research! NB Some of these seem to be near Perth, so are a different place of the same name. That would include the picture that's last on your list, unfortunately -- otherwise it would have been a nice image to include. Alarichall (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ignore that! It was me who was getting confused about which Perth the sources were talking about! Alarichall (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YES there is MORE than one Perth in AU. Aoziwe (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely this article straightforwardly meets WP:GEOLAND: 'Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history'? There's a bit of information in Rebe Taylor, '- The wedge collection and the conundrum of humane colonisation.pdf The Wedge Collection and the Conundrum of Humane Colonisation', Meanjin (Summer 2017), 34-55 that will allow me to provide a few references too. Alarichall (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alarichall I am not at all sure that GEOLAND is applicable. The subject is not a locality, it is an individual, not extensive property. If you have more references than the ones I found and you can enhance the article, I am open to changing my !vote. (I got a 404 error on your link above.) Aoziwe (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Aoziwe! I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Going back to the WP:GEOLAND criteria: is Leighlands a legally recognised place? Yes. It is clearly a place, and it was legally constituted as a 1500-acre estate. Was it populated? Yes. So it meets the criterion. GEOLAND works rather differently from the general notability criteria, which are what you seem to be thinking of in suggesting that more references are required (though I have added some more references). Alarichall (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But by that logic would every quarter acre block in every suburb with a lived in house be notable? Aoziwe (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point. Well, while recognising that this article is never going to be a major contribution to world geography, I'd suggest that we might interpret GEOLAND differently in rural contexts and urban ones. In urban space, small properties together constitute a 'place', whereas in rural space, estates constitute a 'place'. But I wouldn't want to get into a big argument about this! At the end of the day, I just imagine that there will be people out there who want to look up this historically interesting spot; I don't see it as doing anyone any harm; and it does get a passing mention in a few scholarly sources. (By the way -- you may know how to interpret this: this article, p. 72, gives what seem to be co-ordinates for Leighlands, as EP 17006451. But I'm not sure how to interpret this. Just thought I'd ask in case it enables CaptainRaju to sort out his geoco-ordinates issue in the event of keeping the article.) Alarichall (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No biggy for me either. I just think you need something other than GEOLAND to rely solidly on. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Interesting discussion but I think we should keep this article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Privately owned estate does not have notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Helder Wedge. It's an old estate, sure, but besides that, there does not seem to be anything notable, or even interesting, to say about it. SpinningSpark 12:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between the two? Aoziwe (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is the person the estate was originally granted to. SpinningSpark 11:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yep I did know that but did not recall it. I should have rechecked the article! Changing my !vote to merge and redirect. Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Eeesh, if we take GEOLAND to its absurd limit, the small house I own is a "legally recognized place" -- it's in the county Registry of Deeds. I find no notability for this place. Nha Trang ^Allons! 00:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Helder Wedge, the original owner and developer of Leighland.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2019 (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. All over the map. There is no consensus as to whether this meets GNG or not. There are those who support the idea that GNG is only criteria by which to judge notability, and there are those who feel that Wikipedia should present encyclopedic information on topics that are deemed inherently notable (example: Olympic athletes, but in this case those meeting FOOTY), no matter depth of coverage. I doubt further discussion will resolve the dichotomy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Victor Costa Soares

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

Technically unreferenced, but if the information in the article is correct the subject never played in a fully professional league thereby failing WP:NFOOTY, and I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Ymblanter, the lack of notability and a major league are too strong of factors. Garlicolive (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He has played in the K League 2, a fully professional-league (1, 2). Therefore he passes WP:NFOOTY. The article certiantly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you sure this is the same player? The article gives the birth year as 1999.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Per the source I listed above. I think it a reasonable assumption that only one 'Paulo Victor Costa Soares' has moved to Phnom Penh this year. Tropicanan (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is the only coverage I can find about this player. We have nothing from which we can write an article. WP:42 After playing for fully-professional leagues for a couple of years and not receiving any coverage for it, he is now playing in a non-WP:FPL league. If he becomes notable, then we can create the article. Otherwise, this will be a perma-stub. Leviv ich 13:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Article about footballer who played one season in the fully-pro South Korean second division (with a side that finished rock bottom and went out of existence), and has otherwise played in semi-pro leagues. There is nearly no online coverage of him in his homeland (Brazil), and certainly nothing significant, and although I struggle with online Korean-language translators, I found nearly nothing about him (just a routine note on his signing). He's dropped out of fully-professional football and I doubt we will ever locate more significant coverage in the future. I'd like to believe an editor proficient in the Korean language could find something significant online, but it would be better to recreate the article when (and if) that happens. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive outside sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays in the Cambodian League, a completely professional league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitou012 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Vitou012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and appears to pass WP:GNG in foreign language sources (sort of a weak keep !vote, but a keep vote nevertheless.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – inviting keep !voters to post the WP:THREE examples of SIGCOV that pass GNG, as I can only find one [2], which is rather routine. Leviv ich 17:47, 13 April 2019 (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 10:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Kindness Movement

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

This appears entirely promotional, with the wording of a web page or annual report. If they are actually notable , it would need to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot seem to find significant independent reliable secondary sources meaning this company fails WP:ORGCRIT. Meszzy² (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the page is not written as an encyclopaedia entry. However, they seem to have 20 years of media reports about them, what am I missing? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

The reports that exist seem to be about World Kindness Day, not about the organization World Kindness Movement which created the day. The organization appears to only have trivial references in the reports. Meszzy² (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I see your point. Deleting something to then rewrite it, seems like one too many steps. I will not "vote" either way at this point. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete and rewrite There is sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG and simple WP:ORG, bit I totally agree with NOM, WP:TNT. Aoziwe (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG, but rewriting the and improving the reliable sourced that claim enough notability that could be saved from deletion. Sheldybett (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2019 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Brewing and Distilling

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

It's not clear why this should be considered notable under WP:NORG or other applicable. There are a bunch of sources to the organization itself but I can't seem to find anything solid elsewhere. It's been tagged as deficient for going on four years now. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- Although the organisation is an important part of the professional brewing community this page is not up to the requirements of a page in an encyclopedia - The lists of red links and the stagnation in article development does little to support the need to keep the page I certainly do see why one would recommend this for deletion. However it is a significant organisation in the brewing industry and the global professional brewing community. I will commit to working on the page to some level of acceptability. &Brew^t@lk 08:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this is a "significant" organization in the brewing community, then there should be reliable sources stating so. Where are they, please? Nha Trang ^Allons! 00:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable trade association in a notable industry in a notable country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable how exactly, please? Just baldly stating it doesn't make it so. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, considering you've baldly stated it isn't! It is the main professional association for brewers in Britain, a major country known for its beer. It has been so for well over a century. That, as far as I'm concerned, meets the notability criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you review this page I've made no positive statement about the org's notability. What I said was there's a multi-year failure to demonstrate notability, and my WP:BEFORE look for such failed. Again, to make a positive contribution here we need sources not opinions. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A re-check per WP:BEFORE turned up a one-column entry in The Oxford Companion to Beer [3], but we'll need more than this. Note that the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling is an unrelated but probably notable entity. Bri.public (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Cleaned up references on the page, which I believe caused some confusion with regards to notability. Likewise, just looking at a Google News search as shown here [4], I see multiple references to the Institute. Granted, not in-depth, but more than enough to establish notability as an organization that can be looked at as gaining notability under WP:MULTSOURCES. In addition, if we look to Google Scholar as shown here [5] we literally see thousands (1,000+) cites to the organization. Being tagged as deficient is not a reason for deletion but a reason for clean up. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't decided yet. The organisation may well be notable, but it definitely reads like an advert at the moment. Deb (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Oxford Companion to Beer is an excellent source and explains that this organisation has been through several name changes since being founded as the Laboratory Club in 1886. As the current name is comparatively recent (2005), there is likely to be more material under the other, older names. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but it does need some work. Several primary sources will need to be replaced. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:34, 24 April 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Àkin

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources in the article are primary sources. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. The award he won is not notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has won a number of international awards and has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Pulse Nigeria and it is a strong sign of notability that he is being interviewed in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: While Pulse is a reliable source, from experience in the Nigerian perspective, WP:MUSICBIO is a better way of evaluating notability of newer generation musicians than WP:GNG. I'm not confident of the significance of the most prestigious awards won, "African Entertainment Award" and " Independent Music Award". Let me also point that there is another better referenced Nigerian artiste that goes by a similar name, "Akin Shuga". The reason I'm not giving an outright delete is that there is a chance he's more proclaimed overseas than locally, and I'm not sure I've gone through enough Canadian sources. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DIPP

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Has been around for quite a while, never really had any major breakthrough. Can be kept if better written. References such as these can act as foundation - 1, 2, 3. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per handsome boy who has found additional references and at least one of those has substantial coverage. Also, he has won three major awards, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mrgrama

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of the source provided at Boluafrica is from a unreliable/not reputable site here which the sites content is written by the web host. The second source is a promotional download. A WP:BEFORE found no RS and IS. Fails GNG and NMUSIC. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2019 (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 Interactive urinal. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Media

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

shameless promotion by COI. non notable company. a small amount of press coverage due to a once novel concept. the entire article just reads like a press release Rayman60 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Basically all the sources for this article are about the companys video game urinal product rather then the company itself, and it appears an article about the product already exists at Interactive urinal. Any relevant content in this article should just be merged into that article since the sources are all about the urinal really rather than the product. This company is also already mentioned on the Interactive urinal article but also has a bit of a promotional tone so could be rewritten. Meszzy² (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Interactive urinal as a WP:ATD alternative mentioned by Meszzy2. References in the article and in my searches do not show significant coverage of the company itself (but of the product), making it fail WP:NCORP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2019 (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. All "delete" !votes air concerns about the article's current state. However, AFD is not for cleanup and Spinningspark presents several RS that can be used to improve the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse gas emissions in Kentucky

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

Unexplained prod removal. Whole article is a selection of statistics (WP:NOTSTATS) from a 30-year-old government report, so I'm not sure what the purpose of keeping such an outdated topic is. I don't think just finding updated stats would be a good article topic, with no similar articles for other states, but similar stats at List of U.S. states by carbon dioxide emissions. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, complete failure of WP:BEFORE. First of all, an article having a single source is not a reason for deletion. It might be if that were the only source in existence, but that is not the case here. Secondly, being 30-years old has no basis in policy for discounting it. Even if it is out of date (and you can only know that if you have found a more recent source, in which case your action should have been to incorporate that source, not nominate for deletion) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should rightly include history of its topics. That includes the state of play of greenhouse gases in Kentucky in 1990. I am entirely sick of people deleting or overwriting information in Wikipedia because it is out of date when it should just have been rewritten to remove the appearance of being current per MOS:DATED.

This is an easily demonstrable notable topic; coal seam fires and the greenhouse gases they produce are a big issue in Kentucky. There have been several published studies into this [6][7][8]. Numerous other scholarly papers can be found on greenhouse gases in the south-eastern United States from which information on Kentucky can be extracted. Greenhouse Gases: Worldwide Impacts discusses at length plans to store CO₂ underground in Kentucky. SpinningSpark 18:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When readers click on the link I think they would be expecting to find info about the current situation. So I think it is wasting the reader's time to have info which the reader cannot rely on as current (at least to the past few years) or not. If someone has the time and inclination to update this article they might think it instead more useful to update Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States Chidgk1 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because they can be improved per WP:ATD which is policy. What is your policy-based reason for deletion? There is also WP:NOTNEWS which says the diametric opposite of expecting to find info about the current situation, namely Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and is also policy. If the greenhouse gases in Kentucky in 1990 were notable then, they are still notable now. And by the way, do you have any actual evidence that this information is out of date? The coal fires I referred to above are a major, possibly the major, source of greenhouse gas emission in Kentucky and they are still burning now, decades later. SpinningSpark 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify The article merely lists (in prose) measurements from a report. No context, no examination of impact or importance of any of those measurements. Not to say that greenhouse gasses in Kentucky aren't deserving of an article, but this isn't it without significant improvement.

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 Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renée French (actress)

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

Actress with just 2 roles. Only one of them is even on Wikipedia. It seems that her notable role is in a segment of an anthology film called Coffee and Cigarettes and if not deleted should be a redirect to there. Can't find anything else that cries notability for her. Wgolf (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect probably. I'm not even sure that the Renée French who was in Coffee and Cigarettes is the same one who was in Nowhere Fast - I found this book, Jim Jarmusch: Music, Words and Noise with a chapter called "Voices: John Lurie", where John Lurie says "Renée [French] is in Coffee and Cigarettes from 1992 when she was my girlfriend. ....She'd never acted before and acted in Jim's film, you know, so it's a big thing for Renée." [9] (p 99). I'm not sure I really understand "in Coffee and Cigarettes from 1992" - does it mean "she appeared in Coffee and Cigarettes because in 1992 she was my girlfriend"??? But whether she was in other films like Nowhere Fast or not, that does not appear to be a notable film, so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. I don't find anything about her in a google or Newspapers.com search either - not an easy name to search for, as there are several other Renée Frenches, including a writer, a singer, a teacher, a Miss America .... but none that seem to be this one. However, she did have a significant role in Coffee and Cigarettes, so redirecting to Coffee_and_Cigarettes#Renée would make sense (and perhaps including the source I have found as a reference for that section? although it can't be considered independent). RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renee as suggested as her only notable role and she is not independently notable at this time, a redirect is little more than a deletion anyway Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée. There aren't any serious content issues besides the lack of notability, and the section there is sufficient. Pretty much everything is covered there anyway, so not much would be lost, but the redirect may help people find the section. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the movie article does have a section on her/her character so it makes sense to redirect there instead of a delete. Meszzy² (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2019 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of character-based film series

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

I set this decade-and-a-half-old list for deletion for the following reasons:

1. It appears to be trivia for films named after their characters. We may as well create more lists such as "List of platform video game characters who cannot jump" or "List of Pixar box office bombs" (when in fact there is only one).

2. It does not make much sense either. If I were a casual reader browsing encyclopedias like this, I would expect to find some meaningful content, from United States and American Civil War to List of Star Wars characters and Disney. As I pointed out earlier, this list seems to be trivial and only serves to tell us, "Hey! This film is named after one of its characters."

I apologize for what may seem like a slap in the face to @Jengod: and other, if any, closely interested editors. They probably will admit 15 years after the page's creation that it is not compatible on Wikipedia. If there are any reasons to keep the article, let me know. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 00:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Character-based film series seems like a trivia term, not even covered in detail anywhere else. Ajf773 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article probably would have worked had it been referenced or actually went into detail as to how each entry was "character-based", but not in this current state. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh dear, this defines inclusion quite poorly, per nom. How many film series aren't based around main characters? That sounds like the narrower list. Reywas92^Talk 08:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Reywas92, this list is quite arbitrary, regarding lists, this is quite the exemplary useless list, without a good reason to be Garlicolive (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2019 (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 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 keep. WP:FOOLS (non-admin closure) --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste (video game)

(View AfD · Mount Celeste)

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

Game has too many mirrors, delete per WP:NOTMIRROR InvalidOS talk 00:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because it's interfering with other stuff and doesn't have enough participation to delete yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if it's an imgur mirror? [10] 14:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete 7.8/10 Too many mirrors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Blue Hat (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 April 2019 (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. Interesting argument (aka April fools nom). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Existence

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

This irretrievably fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, to the point that it's impossible to write a neutral article. Simply put, the only sources we have are existing ones; even though this purports to cover both existence and nonexistence, there are absolutely no nonexistent sources here to counterbalance those which do exist. Furthermore, even if we did begin to use nonexistent sources they'd still fail WP:V, and any we could verify would by definition have to exist. Therefore, Wikipedia would be better off applying TNT to this mess at least until we can find a workaround enabling us to include nonexistent sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator has obviously not even looked at the invisible and incorporeal list of nonexistent references. – Teratix ₵ 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Matrix, did you know that in 2012 there was an robot uprising so we live in the matrix now Wkc19 :) (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems inherently circular (albeit not WP:CIRCULAR), since sources that prove that the concept of existence exists, exist. At least that is what I think. --bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious WP:HOAX —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear lack of notability. There is no meaning to existence. Every breath we take, we move one step closer to our demise. We live our lives killing time, as time kills us. Dark Knight 2149 17:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE: WP:MILL encyclopedia article. Also fails WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RELIABLE (fails to predict earthquakes), WP:ALPHABETJAMBLESBELONGINWIKIPEDIAARTICLES, and WP:PORNBIO. J 947^{'s public account} _{Merry Christmas (it is Christmas, right?)} 20:31, 1 April 2019 (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 Article 13'd. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internet meme

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

In compliance with the Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive. Greed007 (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banned by the request of the European Parliament and Our lord and saviour Wkc19 :) (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, your argument is invalid; ~~bad german man~~ Our lord and saviour has been Bought and himself banned by a more prosperous kind of hero._{Integral Python}^{click here to argue with me} 11:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Block and delete Article 13. Hands off our memes. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Internet wouldn't exist without them. James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP THE NINE YEAR OLD ARMY CAN PROTECT US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 15:26, 1 April 2019 (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 Stick. The article is sticking around. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderman

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

Spiderman: I don't feel so good Greed007 (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WP:REICHSTAG. Jimbo, I don't feel so good... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until Avengers: Endgame: This character was wiped from existence by Thanos. Dark Knight 2149 17:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; forget him, you and I could rule this city together. YOU CHOSE! JOE BRO 64 19:40, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenth Doctor

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

I feel like being unoriginal today.^{[April Fools!]} ONR (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Fourteenth Doctor, because it's unlucky and therefore falls under this previous AfD Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because thirteen is unlucky. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate. Joanna Lumley is obviously the canonical Thirteenth Doctor. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2019 (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. I mean you're not wrong (non-admin closure) Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild

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

Because it's a non-notable copycat of another film. Trainfan01 (talk), 03:59, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Portal

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

What even is this portal thing anyway? Does it take people to another dimension? If so, this page and the entire Portal namespace should be deleted immediately per WP:CSDD1 as a page that takes Wikipedia readers to another WikiVerse --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources at all, fails WP:V. I also came looking for an article about portals and instead found some non-notable stuff about Wikipedia portals. Confusing and unhelpful. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You monster One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 18:26, 1 April 2019 (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 present. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future

Should be deleted per WP:TOOSOON. InvalidOS talk 19:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, we can also delete April Fools' Day per WP:TOOSOON while we're at it. InvalidOS talk 19:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the safety of space and time because if this gets deleted, we need to delete the past and thus, the universe. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to past, it's inevitable. Leviv ich 05:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and note that the Future begins with January 1, 2016. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother because the internet will all disappear soon. Margalob (talk) 23:51, 31 December 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 send home. Fierce and love, Linguist111^{my talk page} 23:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

America's Next Top Model

AfDs for this article:

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

6,907,144 beautiful articles stand before me, but I only have 6,907,144-1 photos in my hands and these photos represent the 6,907,144-1 articles that are still in the running towards becoming Wikipedia's Next Top Article. The article whose name I do not call must be deleted. *calls names of all articles except America's Next Top Model* Linguist111^{my talk page} 01:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject it to damnatio memoriae per WP:IAR as a crime against humanity. Seriously, if aliens find this planet do you think this will make us look good? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:31, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

42 (number)

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

Delete as it an obviously non notable number. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Cellar/Disused lavatory/Locked filing cabinet/Bottom (WP:BEWAREOFLEOPARD). Apathetic bloody editors, I've no sympathy at all. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How could we delete Jackie Robinson’s number? Discrimination! Trillfendi (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to portal namespace. Also create portals for all the other integers that don't have one yet. Certes (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 24. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to meaning of life. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not a real number. "Forty-two" sounds so unnatural. 24 is so much better --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's not Numberwang. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Retire, as it's Jackie Robinson's number. Duh. - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Demolish to make way for hyperspace bypass, we obviously need more bypasses. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 12:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey! There was no previous notice for this hyperspace bypass! – The Grid (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 6 by 9 is not forty-two. The answer is obviously 54! Also you need to keep up with galactic news to know the bypass was coming! Your loss! One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 15:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 420. Dark Knight 2149 17:35, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kneel Before Me

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

I am sick of this new rule. Let’s just banish it.^{[April Fools!]} Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ignore all rules —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Banish to the Phantom Zone. Dark Knight 2149 17:36, 1 April 2019 (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. Poor Pluto - April fools nom close. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto

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

Does not meet WP:NPLANET as it is a run of a mill dwarf planet. Probably should be redirected to Plutonium as that is notable.-KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planet Nine, the actual not-totally-dwarf planet planet. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Afd is among the most nonsensical Afd's I've ever seen. Pluto exists; it's a dwarf planet. Georgia guy (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pluto (Disney). -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTPLANETDIRECTORY and my definition of GNG is 900,000 sources required. Any redirecting would cause confusion, and disambigs are too niche. J 947^{'s public account} _{Merry Christmas (it is Christmas, right?)} 01:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uranus, Neptune, or any other planet. Then delete that as non-notable. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pluto is a planet.^{[citation needed]} —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so we don't offend the dwarves. --SuperJew (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2019 (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 Irrelevant. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium

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

A failed experimental Wiki whose active users can be counted on one hand. Long past the stage where it could meet WP:NWEB. At best, perhaps a merge to its predecessor, Nupedia. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia as it is just a WP:MIRROR of Wikipedia. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Wikipedia and Citizendium. But I think it's alright to keep Wikia and Nupedia because they can still be improved. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wikipedia. As a radical inclusionist, I believe that ALL wikis should be merged into Wikipedia. Benjamin (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of chemical element discoveries#Recorded discoveries. No News ! 07:48, 1 April 2019 (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 potato. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete as it is WP:POINTy. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pyramid. Because four triangles and a square make a pyramid. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like my sines and tangents, thank you very much. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to potato so it is no longer pointy. --Dps04 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to square, two triangles make a square. James-the-Charizard (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to square is by far the best idea I've seen. Potato is a close second. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simplex per META:THEFOURTHDIMENSION InvalidOS talk 21:58, 1 April 2019 (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. WP:FOOLS. April Fools Day has ended (non-admin closure) --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

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

Not intelligent, and not designed intelligently. Delete per WP:FRINGE. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split to creationism and Timecube. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Do you even lift, bruh? - God 17:33, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heisei period

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

This era is coming to an end at the end of the month, and a replacement is to be announced today. We won't have a use for this article anymore: it's time for it to abdicate. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:34, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mami Kawada

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

Now I know what you're thinking: why would I want the article of my favorite singer to be deleted? Why do I want the article that I have the most edits to be deleted? Simple really: she retired! Thus she now fails WP:LASTING. If only she were still around then she'd still be notable, but alas, she's forgotten now. At best, suggesting a merge to Shakugan no Shana or A Certain Magical Index. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:33, 1 April 2019 (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 saved by the 9-year old army.. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pewdiepie

AfDs for this article:

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

This article should be deleted as he was just passed by Uranus in subscribers and therefore is not notable. ^[4-1] -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subscribe to PewDiePie *trips edit filter* —T-Series (talk)
Redirect to The Annoying Orange. Pretty much the same thing anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete T-Series, they suck!! Sincerely, the 9-year-`old army epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! It's your big day, Uranus. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)^[4-1][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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Formula One World Championship

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

I don't think we need an article on this: I mean it's just going to be another edition of #MercedesWinsLol. It's just going to be a duplicate of the previous seasons, so why bother? ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 1 April 2019 (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 haha very funny (keep), but I can foresee this getting political and NPA-y real quick, so I'm closing it. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 07:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton

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

She got Trumped. 'Nuff said. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Investigate her emails again because there’s no point for doing that that’s too much. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her out of the White House --Dps04 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire Clinton family as it is a disgrace to America. Eye snore 03:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Conservapedia... J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the rest of 2016 and the fall out from it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:29, 31 December 2015 (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. WP:FOOLS (non-admin closure) --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pence

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

I'm not sure if this guy meets WP:GNG. Apparently he's just a powerless assistant to some low-paying job that people don't really want to get hired for, who can't even make his own decisions unless necessary. Is he notable? ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to somebody more notable. Margalob (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert him using federal fu- oh wait, let’s not go there. 😏Trillfendi (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marlon Bundo. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the rest of 2016 and the fall out from it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:29, 31 December 2015 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of American Football

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

A "minor" "developmental" football league that might not even make it to the end of its inaugural season. Why bother with an article? Probably doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS. Or suggesting a merger with XFL (2020). ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:10, 1 April 2019 (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. WP:FOOLS (non-admin closure) --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Soccer

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

Not actually a major league (more like a retirement league), and not even major in either America or soccer. Thus it doesn't meet WP:NLEAGUE or WP:NSPORTS. I mean, does anyone even watch MLS? Does anyone actually care? If MLS disappeared tomorrow would anyone notice? I don't think so. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~GOOOOOOOAAAAALLL!~~ Keep. This league is notable because soccer has been America's sport of the future since 1972. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Red Card per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change title to "Major League FOOTBALL" 141.92.67.44 (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded! Gimubrc (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fourthed! :) J 947^{'s public account} _{Merry Christmas (it is Christmas, right?)} 20:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Put it up for ransom. A few Garber Bucks is all that it would take. Sounder Bruce 21:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sports articles, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 21:37, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Festival Asia

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

They've already quit Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Only Singapore remains: no Philippines or Vietnam to be seen. And no, the Hong Kong and Tokyo events don't count since they're actually C3 but rebranded. In any case, I don't think this yearly large and popular event meets WP:NEVENT. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anime is overrated. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP NICO NICO NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

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 not saved. (non-admin closure) Linguist111^{my talk page} 23:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight saving time

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

I have had to wait until one o'clock in the morning to start making April Fool's AfDs thanks to daylight saving time. I wanted to start making them at midnight, but if I did that, the timestamp would still read 31 March. Not fair D8< Linguist111^{my talk page} 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It only pushes the start of April Fools Day on Wikipedia to 20:00 ET, so I see no need IMHO. Would suggest deleting standard time instead because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Be gone.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 00:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the world doesn't use it, so why should others? It's just a waste of time. I mean you must have screwed up if even Europe wants it gone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate it!! Why do I have to get up at 5 in the morning instead of 6? It's UnFaIr AnD It ShOuLd Be RePeAlEd!!!1!!! epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Daylight savings poisoned our water supply, burned our crops and delivered a plague unto our houses!--Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It did?! James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but are we just going to wait around until it does?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 23:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one hour late we need standard time! James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all year long per WP:ILIKEIT. Natureium (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Portal:Daylight saving time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hourglass so I can watch one hour of sand go through it. ^{[April Fools!]} Tropicalkitty (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the EU then we can ignore their daylight saving bureaucracy. Daily Express fan club (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Make UTC follow DST year-round. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I want my nights back! Save our nights! Valley2city^‽ 20:03, 1 April 2019 (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 disruptively deleted to prove a point then redirected to Patrick Star. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point

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

This should be deleted because of WP:POINT -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uranus —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was obviously a WP:POINTy nomination, please don't make nominations like that again.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 00:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patrick Star. He has a head! It ends in a point! Pointy pointy pointy! Pointy pointy point! This AFD is over, except for this line: you win this round, Broccoli! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sharp corners and points are dangerous. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point per WP:POINT Gimubrc (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this AfD is obviously pointless. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 16:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no point in keeping it around. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:19, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Yang

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

I'm not sure if this guy meets WP:NPOL and WP:LASTING. I mean, is he even a serious presidential candidate? Does he even have a chance of winning? I'm sorry Yang Gang but I think he's too insignificant for Wikipedia. At best, maybe a merge to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secure The Bag: Where's the money where's the money? We have the money. Put the money in our hands. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (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 hilarious. April Fools' Day is over. (non-admin closure) Bsoyka (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

AfDs for this article:

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

This wasn't funny the first time, it wasn't funny the second time, it definitely wasn't funny the eleventh time, and it's not funny now, but that never stopped us before, did it? jp×g 07:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I want to create a page called Earth (2nd nomination) in mainspace, but since that would be vandalism... HotdogPi 13:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete twice because this is the second Earth AfD today (the first one is here). —C++coder (Merry Xmas!!! | talk | talk but in italics) 13:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Earth We need to reset the AfD counter.--Henke37 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to make way for a inter-wiki bypass. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:44, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic Girls

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 grounded until the Note 7 flies over the moon. @Narutolovehinata5: April fools nom close. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737 MAX

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

The plane is currently grounded worldwide, I suggest we also delete the article until the investigations are done and the planes are flying again. This article is too unsafe to fly. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Samsung Galaxy Note 7. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crash the plane with the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 ^{[April Fools!]} --SansUT (talk | contributions) 02:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dismantle before another crash! James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ground to draft Yeah, the MAX has been misbehaving, so Boeing sentenced the plane to the draft namespace.
Delete Completely unsafe. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per safety concerns --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:08, 2 April 2019 (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. WP:FOOLS (non-admin closure) --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit

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

What a mess, Parliament can't even agree on a way to move forward? It seems our only solution is to #CancelBrexit altogether and #RevokeArticle50. Time to delete Brexit and pretend this craziness ever happened, it's as dead as May's deal. Also nominating the following people and organizations for deletion for "helping" us lead to this mess:

(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)

Time to put Brexit out of its misery. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for one more month. Margalob (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sick of hearing about it. It's time for Brexit to make its Wikipexit! Linguist111^{my talk page} 00:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Might as well delete House of Commons as it's part of the mess. --Dps04 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to remove from EU. ^{[April Fools!]} --SansUT (talk | contributions) 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Do people realise that this will go to DRV many, many times? :) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we need have a People's vote on this 141.92.67.44 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hobson's choice – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Theresa May who has caused this mess with a bad deal. Keep the rest because they are useful. ^{[April Fools!]} Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the rest of 2016 and the fall out from it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the EU. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 21:55, 1 April 2019 (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 to just simply get gud. ^{[April Fools!]} (non-admin closure) --SansUT (talk | contributions) 23:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rubik's Cube

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

I can't solve the Rubik's Cube problem I created on my own, that's why it should be removed. --SansUT (talk | contributions) 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cube as that should fix your problem. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ernő Rubik as it’s his creation. James-the-Charizard (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to time cube. Margalob (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to this AfD because it contains all the information about it. J 947^{'s public account} _{Merry Christmas (it is Christmas, right?)} 20:21, 1 April 2019 (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. @Narutolovehinata5: WOW, I can't believe this was a nomination . April fools nom close. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WOW air

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

Considering the airline collapsed a few days ago and is no longer extant, it doesn't make sense for us to have an article on it anymore. Suggest deletion or perhaps a merge to Icelandair. ^{[April Fools!]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, isn't WOW when I ~~tell~~ flip over MOM jokes? epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
**company goes belly up** Eye snore 03:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I never heard of this airline before. Yeah let's delet. ^{[April Fools!]} --SansUT (talk | contributions) 01:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 737 Max. WOW air took a nose dive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Blue Hat (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but sell to Icelandair, Blizzard or Willy on Wheels. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:24, 1 April 2019 (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 nom (non-admin closure) Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

AfDs for this article:

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

Obviously useless. Fails every notability guideline imaginable. Find more important stuff to do, like file a complaint against an experienced editor at WP:ANNIE and get indeffed within 10 seconds.^{[April Fools!]}--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 00:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke and send to Uranus as that is the only sensible option. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wrong venue 58.119.3.26 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and consider removing Category: Proposed Deletion while we're at it. Gimubrc (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: because we can't let non-admins have a monopoly on relisting ansh 666 20:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 20:00, 1 April 2019 (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.

Th fllwng dscssn s n rchvd dbt f th prpsd dltn f th rtcl blw. Pls d nt mdfy t. Sbsqnt cmmnts shld b md n th pprprt dscssn pg (sch s th rtcl's tlk pg r n a dltn rvw). N frthr dts shld b md t ths pg.

Th rslt ws Kp. WP:FLS (nn-dmn clsr) --KP03(^{Tlk • Cntrbtns • ml}) 00:18, 2 prl 2019 (TC)

Vwl

Fnd srcs: Ggl (bks · nws · nwspprs · schlr · fr mgs · WP rfs) · FNS · JSTR · NYT · TWL

Prsnlly w shld tlk wtht thm ^{[prl Fls!]} SgWtr (tlk) 00:57, 1 prl 2019 (TC)

Dlt - Y knw, Hbrw nd Rbc srvv wtht vwls. F thy cn d tht, s cn Nglsh. Nrtlvhnt5 ^tccsdnw 00:56, 1 Prl 2019 (TC)
Dlt r Mv t Vwl pr nm. Lngst111^{my tlk pg} 02:21, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Spdy Kp fr f w gt rd f ll vwls, hw wll w spk prprly? Jms-th-Chrzrd (tlk) 02:53, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Dlt pr nm. W dn't nd ny vwls (sm wrds hv n vwls, fr xmpl, crwth). y snr 03:23, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Trnswk t Frnch Wkpd s th r tdtd hr. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:07, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Spdy Dlt Th rtcl s ptnt nnsns; thr s n nd t g thrgh a stndrd dltn dscssn. Sprt f gl (tlk) 04:29, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
mrg w/ tsktsks –~~MJL ‐Tlk‐~~^{1 prl}04:31, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Cmmnt F dltd, sggst n dt fltr t prvnt ny mr vwls frm vr bng sd n Wkpd. (Ls: s Y ncldd n ths nmntn?) – Trtx ₵ 06:08, 1 Prl 2019 (TC)
ee - IA (A) 06:11, 1 Ai 2019 (U)
Dlt - N n nds ths slly vwls. Kds ths dys dn't vn s thm nywys. —k6k 🍁 (Tlk · Cntrbtns) 13:05, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Spdy Cnsnnt bcs cnsnnt. InvldS tlk fftn zr ght, n prl twnt nntn, (TC)
Kp vwls nt ncssr bt cnsdr: ltn dd lng 2 bt stll nd 4 ctnt; ths kp vwl 4 hstrcl prps Gmbrc (tlk) 15:41, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Spdy kp. Vwls r mprtnt, vn f th r cnfsng n nglsh. f w d dlt thgh, wht d w d bt Y? —Pythncdr (tlk | cntrbs) 16:03, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
- lttr b4 z = vwl; thrfr dlt 4 grt jstc. Gmbrc (tlk) 17:06, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Dlt nd mv th mssng vwls t nly Cnnct. — Blrv (h/hm) _(tlk) 16:39, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Cmmnt Ds "y" cnt? cnt s "y" "r" r ""! Wht th fck s ths!? — Prcdng nsgnd cmmnt ddd b n Bl Ht (tlk • cntrbs) 19:59, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
- lttr b4 z cts s vwl smtms ths = vwl; rmv Gmbrc (tlk) 18:31, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
Dlt W dn't nd vwls nywys, s whts th pnt f hvng ths rtcl? Dlphn (sqk?) 20:37, 1 prl 2019 (TC)
- hmns dnt nd thr ppndx, bt w hv rtcl 4 thm stll. Gmbrc (tlk) 18:38, 1 prl 2019 (TC)

Th fllwng dscssn s n rchvd dbt f th prpsd dltn f th rtcl blw. Pls d nt mdfy t. Sbsqnt cmmnts shld b md n th pprprt dscssn pg (sch s th rtcl's tlk pg r n a dltn rvw). N frthr dts shld b md t ths pg.

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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wellstone

AfDs for this article:

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

Every source in this article was written by either a Democrat or a Republican. We need third party sources. Khemehekis (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2019 (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. April fools nom TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump wall

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

This project isn't notable! Let's get rid of it! ^{[April Fools!]} EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can spend better our small loan of a million dollars!One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 15:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I heard Mexico was paying for it. Dark Knight 2149 17:30, 1 April 2019 (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 NUKE per IAR is a good option @起司狗:. April fools nom close. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page

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

Someday the main page should be deleted. 起司狗 (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete let the revolution commence! Wkc19 :) (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:IAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Blue Hat (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke the page per WP:IGNORE --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:55, 2 April 2019 (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 CAN DO ANYTHING! (jevil closure) Jevil (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deltarune

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

Jevil said that he wanted the page deleted.^[1] InvalidOS talk 12:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous reasoning. As stated (with a reliable cite from the creator), Jevil can do anything. ^{[April Fools!]} Lafayette Baguette ^talk 13:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ralsei Says No How can you say no and delete to a cute face like Ralsei's? Wkc19 :) (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, as Jevil is capable of anything, his will supersedes any rules or regulations for Wikipedia. Retroity (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Epsilonrune. Gimubrc (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Welp, Undertale's gonna have a bad time.'One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "I CAN DO ANYTHING.", Jevil, October 31, 2018.

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 Spirit of Eagle's pizza party being catered by Spider-Man. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 2 (video game)

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

There is too much pizza in this game. ^{[April Fools!]} - pivotman319 (📫) 13:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Time Pizza Time Wkc19 :) (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the original animal/pizza cross-over. Anything else is merely mimicking its movements. Samsara 14:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pizza. Outofmario (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! You serious?One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rent: We will delete this article... When you FIX THIS DAMN DOOR! Dark Knight 2149 17:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add Pepperoni for good food. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anchovies —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2019 (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] "I CAN DO ANYTHING.", Jevil, October 31, 2018.

[1]