Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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

The result was April 1 is over. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 00:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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

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

ArticleEs for deletion is not notable enough to determine other articles' notability. Unless someone can find a CNN article about this subject then it should die in a fire immediately. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not notable ... has anyone ever written a book about AfD, ever?? It seems this page is mostly just a collection of links. Also this is my third spoof AfD of the day and if there are any more people might start to wonder if they can take me seriously when I try to vote in a real AfD. So let's just solve the problem by getting rid of AfD altogether. —Soap— 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, check out this book on Amazon, it covers the topic quite extensively: Wales, J. (2011). AFD: Wikipedia's Timeline History, 2003-2011. Wikimedia. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD and PROD are sufficient. It will definitely cut down the amount of drama if there is no AfD. In addition AfD is by no means notable, so lets delete all other AfD debates as well as they are equally non-notable, then salt. If we really need a AfD page, why not use this page. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. Clearly doesn't exist, no sources found whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source: [1]. Oh wait, nevermind, I voted delete too. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page isn't notable and yet we're relying on it for the AFDs of other pages. This must be stopped! Bejinhan talks 02:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Waste of memory and badwidth space, better off used in storing important stuff. --TitanOne (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This page has potential, but it could use some improvements. Suggest total rewrite. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unencyclopedic, even a full rewrite wouldn't help. Violates WP:NOT in several levels. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What's the point of a page that destroys Wikipedia articles :P Dough 48 72 03:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found a couple reliable sources [2][3] that might be able to help. Magicperson _{(Politically correct)} 03:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WP:Votes for Deletion, Voting is Good. ;-P 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Suppa Duppa Delete - This article is clearly a BLATANT infringement to every single rule in Wikipedia! And this place is filthy! Let's clean it up.
This post brought to you by Dial Soap
Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, stop that, it's silly ~ ~~ 65.93.12.101 (talk) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)~[reply]
A rabbit wearing a top hat with a walrus on a bicycle Will explain if necessary Purple backpack89 04:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other stuff exists that isn't even as notable as this! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But does it pass the Pokemon test? Purple backpack89 04:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to collect them all, why do I gotta? 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)~~ 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)~~ 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)~ 05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)05:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete with seasoning on top. Absolutely useless. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:FART. If that fails, then per WP:POOP. CycloneGU (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gentle, caressing Delete --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack page. Constantly filled with unsourced original research attacking subjects as "not notable", including numerous living people. All current and former ArbCom members should be indef blocked for not dealing with this previously. --RL0919 (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion Who the hell crated this page? A page for delete pages, really? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colonel Warden. Hans Adler 06:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Hans Adler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Pgallert (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pgallert (talk · contribs) has made numerous other edits outside this topic. Hut 8.5 10:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received coverage in reliable sources [4],[5],[6]. Yoenit (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted to delete the keep for deleting keeps :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Complete purge from databases. Should be followed with reformatting of database server hard drives for good measure, just to ensure that AfD is wiped from existence once and for all. --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 07:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because The Armbrust said so. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 10:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [7] constitutes significant coverage. Hut 8.5 10:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has too many red links. -- 575 Rev olve 10:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with 575Revolve. Also, it's a waste of space. No More April Fools. 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't Ed Poor already take care of this? The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is loaded with red link, and is therefore unreliable.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{†Go Buffalo! (sign)†} 14:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND Can't we just give peace a chance guys?--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{†Go Buffalo! (sign)†} 14:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Joe Decker and Yoenit are sufficient. Reach Out to the Truth 15:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A page discussing deletion of pages that are worked on so hard by other editors? Really? Be done with it. CycloneGU (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page is clearly bloated with excess fat that can't be healthy for the server. Besides, subjecting a bad article to 7 days of bashing is considered cruel and unusual punishment. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It clearly doesn't exist, everything else matters. Oh wait, that's what the alternate-universe Kmweber said. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:10, 1 April 2011 (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.