Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 1

Guide to 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 no consensus on WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Viðar Örn Hafsteinsson

Viðar Örn Hafsteinsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Simply does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep One of the best known coaches in the country, passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. First of the subject fails WP:NBASKETBALL so he has to pass general GNG criteria. The sources in the article are not giving enough sigcov hence fails this also. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - seems borderline. Alvaldi what would you say were the WP:THREE best sources on this player in terms of coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

For me it would probably be these: Morgunblaðið - Coverage about him and his success with Höttur. Vísir.is/Stöð 2 - An interview on Stöð 2 with him regarding his stay with the team and recent promotion in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland. Fréttablaðið - Article/interview regarding him and the flow of foreign players in the Icelandic leagues. This one is also from Vísir.is but is a good coverage about him and his team and a discussion about the interview with him. He became a bit of a cult phenomenon due to his bluntness in the interview and his quotes have been frequent headlines in the Icelandic media.

• Keep - I agree that the sources above are enough to demonstrate WP:GNG, which simply requires that multiple reliable sources discuss the subject in a non-trivial way (multiple paragraphs dedicated to the subject would be more than a trivial mention); the references cited are from major reliable Icelandic publications, many of which I am familiar with when working on Icelandic footballer articles. Furthermore, there would be no obvious merge target so it's essentially keep or delete. There's definitely enough Icelandic media coverage to support a keep vote in this instance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Alan Haskvitz

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Alan Haskvitz
• Articles for deletion/Alan Haskvitz (2nd nomination)

Alan Haskvitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Second nomination; the last one was a "no consensus" in 2014. Sounds like he had an interesting career, but I don't think this meets the notability hurdle as there is no significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Neutrality^talk 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• weak keep clearly notable given all the awards and a obituary in a (local) newspaper. --hroest 13:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• The obituary looks like a paid obituary rather than a staff-written one. The awards don't establish significant in-depth coverage independent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 14:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I considered that but I think this is the paid one. I am also not claiming that the obituary by itself gives notability but based on the prior discussion and all arguments I concluded that he is notable. --hroest 16:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Both of these appear to be paid obits, just in different local papers: the first in Pasadena Star-News and the second in Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I agree, I retract my statement regarding the obituary. I also share your concerns regarding RS, it seems they are very sparse and from the ones in the article it seems only has any info about him, a source I have never heard of before. On the other hand, some RS may be pre-internet. --hroest 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the awards does not have the independent coverage that is needed to show notability, and even a staff written obituary in a hyper local paper would not be in and of itself a sign of notability. There is nothing here even remotely suggesting that Haskvitz was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Waltzing Matilda Aviation

Waltzing Matilda Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD was removed but without a valid reason. Not a notable company, as the size of their fleet and the lack of proper secondary sources indicate. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete Agree that this fails NCORP, based on available sourcing.--- Possibly (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• This company has announced operations firmly beginning in Fall 2021. Previous editor deleted sources. This operator is notable due to fleet expansion / orders / options with deliveries over next few months. Operator is positioned to become direct competitor with Porter Airlines given fleet expansion of Dash 8 Q400 aircraft and FAR Part 121 service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyguyairlines (talk • contribs) 2021-04-01T15:04:20 (UTC)
  • … none of which is at all relevant. Where has this company been independently documented in depth by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy? Please point to that. That shows notability. Our personal opinions of how important something is are not relevant. Nor are company press releases. Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NCORP. PR coverage only. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete does not have enough news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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 draftify. Consensus was that the subject does not meet WP:NFF as an unreleased film since the production itself does not meet WP:GNG.

There exists consensus to discount some sources for overlapping coverage (and likely non-independence) when determining whether the production meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

American Boogeywoman

American Boogeywoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:TOOSOON fails WP:NFF as no indication out of pre-production and that principal photography has started. This was moved to Draft space to incubate, which was correct for this but rejected by the author. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Anyone can clearly read in the Deadline article that the film is in post-production phase, from what I see the person who opened this discussion did not even bother to read the links. It is also the prequel to a film known as Monster and will be distributed by an internationally known distributor. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify - It seems that the nom tried this, but perhaps if there is wider consensus behind it, it will stick a little longer? To ensure this, you'd probably have to (a) force it to go through AfC (some will cringe), or (b) just wait for at least two reviews per WP:NFO? I don't quite understand your comment, Bruno Rene Vargas. Deadline reports that it's in post-production--OK, that's one potentially reliable piece, but being in post-production doesn't automatically meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG notability requirements. Being a prequel to another film doesn't have any relevance to this film since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And having an international distributor also doesn't matter as the first part of NFO is being widely distributed with at least two reviews. NFF says filming must have started, but it also says that the production must be notable. Thus far, I am only seeing one independent, reliable report. Casting reports are very rarely independent and these (or at least the one linked) seems to fail WP:NFSOURCES being churn of primary source claims. An independent casting report would mean a reporter dug in and uncovered something unannounced that was later confirmed. Varity Insight seems good for verifying info, but there is zero prose, so it cannot fulfil NFSOURCES.

  Of course, if the production was notable and there are reports out there saying something like "Peyton List was a dream to work with" or "The crew had to work 22 hours a day to get this done, and everyone hates ___" or whatever, I'd be happy to adjust my !vote, but until then, there's no real rush to have this in main space until there is more real independent coverage. I'm 99% sure this will be notable soon, but I don't see enough yet. Pretend there is a fire and all footage is destroyed, and they cut their losses after insurance pays out, never to try again. Is what we have enough to say it was a notable production? Not yet, for me at least. -2pou (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ok @2pou:, I agree with what you say in some things but I do not understand why drafity if it is practically 100% sure that the film will have more notability very soon. Also, under the argument of imagining that hypothetical case, the truth is that a great majority of existing articles should be moved to drafts because only mega-productions or films with renowned directors would be taken into account because it is this kind of productions that have hundreds of articles. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely right. If you see them, you could nominate them, but it's hard to comb through them all unless it's in the WP:NPP feed in order to bring it here. -2pou (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: The 5 sources in the article are enough to pass GNG clearly. Reliable, significant coverage that is independent of the source. The rest is irrelevant to an AFD. The length and/or quality of the article is an issue for the talk page and for future editors to improve upon. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think "clearly" is a stretch. See below -2pou (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:2pou

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1 (Bloody Disgusting)	3 pieces saying the same thing within a day of		Most is quoted mat'l--harder to tell how	✘ No
2 (JoBlo)	each other clearly fails WP:NFSOURCES		much is their work, but moot to analyze.	✘ No
3 (FilmInk)	(i.e. no independence as press release per WP:NFSOURCES)		Same as above, and not even a byline	✘ No
4 (Deadline)				✔ Yes
5 (Variety Insight)			Zero words (prose)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment: You are inventing reasons to dismiss sources that don't follow GNG. Labelling sources as "non-independent" despite at least three of them being unrelated to each other, and unrelated to the subject. You've also quoted an essay as a reason to discount a source. Essays aren't guidelines, anyone can write an essay and they have no weight or bearing on official discussions. It is not surprising to me that multiple sources will report on something once the information is made public, so calling that "churn" anyway is ridiculous. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy to remove the essay reference if that is distracting. It was only intended to expound on what the WP:NFSOURCES guideline is saying already in a paragraph--to better articulate for an interested reader what it meant if they want to read instead of ask. The essay is not important to the argument at all. The point was that they are not unrelated to the subject as it is being put out by them—JoBlo straight says it, BD says they're just repeating Deadline, and FilmInk doesn't give a writer because that's common for press release. This falls under what WP:N defers to WP:NFILM for exclusion. Regardless, I doubt I'll sway you, but I will remove the essay, and let the community decide. -2pou (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify per WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." What is the rush? Kolma8 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. To really establish that this is notable, the film needs to have coverage of the production in some form or fashion. As someone who writes very, very regularly about horror films on Wikipedia, this is often not doable with most films because there aren't that many outlets that really care to report regularly on horror media. Sometimes if something goes mainstream enough it will, but it's never a guarantee.

Now as far as the existing coverage goes, this says that the film is in post, but doesn't really give us anything about the production itself. For example, there's nothing really about where it was filmed, when, or other important info needed to establish that the production was notable. It's relatively rare to find coverage that would firmly establish this, which is why so many horror films don't have articles until fairly late in the game, typically after they're released. Offhand there doesn't look to be coverage to show where production is notable - there needs to be some other details other than "it's in post production" to really establish this. If I have time I'll try to see what I can do, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify. Part of the issue with establishing notability for films is that we need to be able to establish that the production has received coverage. This is usually done by news articles reporting on the start of filming, announcements of stars coming on to the film, and so on. But with this there's nothing. No coverage of any type until the announcement that the film will release and that it's in post production. This is kind of surprising given the names involved (Tobin Bell for one). The coverage all says effectively the same thing, to the point where it is very, very obvious that they're based off the same press releases.

The issue here is that while there is a brief flurry of coverage, it doesn't really show any depth of coverage because it's all pretty much the same. If some were slightly different and went over the locations or if there were announcements about stars coming on, then it might be easier to argue for a keep but this is just a bit too soon. If this were to sit in post-production hell (which happens A LOT) then this coverage wouldn't be enough to justify it passing NFILM or NFF. TBH, this is fairly common for horror films. They tend to fly under the radar and then spring forth almost fully formed once it's time to release, gain more funding, or sell. This can just sit for a little while until more coverage becomes available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: How long an article might be has nothing to do with if it's notable or not. This article while passing GNG might only need to be a 30 word stub. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's not about the length, it's about the fact that the existent coverage all states content taken from the same press release. There's no depth of coverage here. If something were to happen and this were to sink into post-development hell, which can and does happen extremely frequently - particularly with horror films - there would not be enough depth of coverage to justify inclusion. The main keep arguments here are arguing for inclusion based on the amount without really taking into account the content of the sourcing. It's not like the sources are written all that differently content-wise or like any of this has info on the production (other than it being in post) or even a review. There's just not enough out there to show a depth of coverage. That's why I think this should be put in draftspace. I think I'm probably one of the more liberal people when it comes to film notability, particularly when it comes to horror, but this just isn't there. It's just not ready yet. There needs to be at least some other coverage to really help establish how this meets NFF. I mean, if there were at least an interview somewhere that would be something but there isn't. There's not much out there other than what was put in the press release that was sent out. I don't think that any of the cast or crew posted on social media about this during filming, that's how little there was out there when I looked. Having an article is just premature at this point. This could release by the end of the year and have a ton of coverage... or it could sit for a few more years on the shelf, completed but not seeing the light of day due to the typical industry stuff that happens with films. We can't judge it based on potential future notability, just on what's here now - which isn't enough in my opinion to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Essentially, it's not the length of the article, it's the fact that all of the available coverage is based on a single press release. The outlets can't give any more details because they haven't been given any other than what was in that single press release or what they took from the outlet(s) that reported on said press release. If there was something, anything out there to give more depth of coverage then that would be great - and I definitely looked - but there just wasn't anything. Ultimately all that was told was that the film is in post, has the specified actors, and was purchased, but not anything about where it was filmed or anything along those lines. NFF is pretty much hanging on a single sentence mentioning post-production, which isn't enough given that it's based on multiple outlets reporting on the same press release. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Stawell Gift. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sam Jamieson (sprinter)

Sam Jamieson (sprinter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NTRACK. Has information from only one source, the Herald Sun, which isn't considered to be a reliable secondary source. Nevertheless, the subject does not have significant coverage and does not meet the notability guidelines for their sport. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merge into Stawell Gift - not individually notable person as this race is a community handicap event rather than an elite competition. SFB 14:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination shows a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. A basic search shows coverage in multiple other mainstream reliable sources. Even if you are not keen on a stand alone article (might see it as blp1e) there is a clear alternative to deletion as pointed out above. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Which sources are you talking about? – because I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources that talk about him other than very briefly, in passing. He also doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  , , . duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Those three sources hardly make him meet WP:NTRACK. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete There is no evidence of multiple sources that would lead to passing GNG. Ideally people who want to argue for such should add the sourcing to the article. At a minimum they need to cite specific sources in an argument to keep. They key to Wikipedia is verrifiability, which means finding sources, not just asserting they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge per Sillyfolkboy - no one has demonstrated that a merge to there isn't inappropriate. Johnpacklambert's contribution is unhelpful and should be ignored. Deus et lex (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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. There's little discussion, and given the apparent potential for confusion, any new nomination should make sure that we don't confuse this person with the subject of the last AfD (if they are indeed different people). Sandstein 07:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Kumud Das

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kumud Das
• Articles for deletion/Kumud Das (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Kumud Das (3rd nomination)

Kumud Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This journalist was found in 2013 to be non-notable, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumud Das. The information in this article is from or prior to 2013, and so already considered by the prior AFD. Naïve Google search finds LinkedIn and Facebook and shows that he writes for the Economic Times. It appears that not much has changed in eight years. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep : The person Kumud Das mentioned in your AFD remark is a different person. Kumud Das is not only a journalist but also a noted writer in Assamese language. To avoid confusion, here is a video of Kumud Das while hosting his popular TV show - Nalbarian (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 18:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails Wp:GNG -- Eatcha 05:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Eatcha, could you please elaborate? He is a author of several books and a leading TV journalist of a major TV channel in Assam (Check the article and references). I think namesake (people having identical monikers in a nation of 1.3 billion) is the only problem with him. Nalbarian (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Momele

Momele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." If so, I wish they had been added to the article. Which right now only has 2 press releases, an interview, and a couple of brief mentions. Does not meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• And a whole review! Meet WP:NALBUM. Last time you deleted an album that had four reviews! --Sanslogique (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, one more time for the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tamara Gverdtsiteli as a compromise, and that is standard procedure for questionably notable albums anyway. I am unable to find anything in Russian or Georgian beyond the sources already in the article, but that may reflect my foreign language searching skills. I reviewed the current sources via Google Translate and agree with the nominator on how they are brief press releases from questionably reliable sources, a review that might be reliable but might not, and an interview with the singer in which this album is only mentioned briefly. Redirect to the singer per the usual procedure, and if anyone finds anything more reliable the article can be re-created easily. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Frances Street Squats

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Frances Street Squats
• Articles for deletion/Frances Street Squats (2nd nomination)

Frances Street Squats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously ended up being soft deleted due to lack of participation. Someone WP:REFUND however no compelling sources have been offered. The article from the very beginning was sourced almost entirely from the The Ubyssey which is like a local paper. Another from a different college paper by the same author. I find that this former squat house of the local interest doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:NORG and in determining/WP:SIRS, series of coverage by the same publisher or journalist is considered one source. The student paper as well as local centric sources fail the audience base, because it is a intended for Vancouver area coverage. It also appears that the article's creator was an involved party of the article. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing suggests this is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The user who requested WP:REFUND added contents and sources, but it still doesn't amount to significant coverage in media not tailored to local cverage. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - appears to be extensive coverage in the Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Ubyssey, and it's the subject of a chapter of Under the Viaduct: Homeless in Beautiful B.C.. Some of the sources I don't have access to (like the text of that chapter), but considering the amount of pre-web coverage that's accessible or at least visible, I'd imagine there would be even more from contemporary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • comment which The Province coverage? I didn't see it cited. Care to explain which source you mean? Local Vancouver matters (local affairs) covered in Vancouver press is hardly a surprise. The Ubyssey is exceedingly local. The Ubyssey would be reliable coverage for that those things happened near the UBC campus, but meaningless for notability. Have you looked at AUD in WP:ORGDEPTH? Also articles that extensively quote long quotes of "the subject organization said..." for the lack of intellectual independence should be properly discounted. That book you talk about is very much locally focused. A chapter in a locally focused isn't much in terms of audience. It's also over reaching to speculate on the coverage significance based on a chapter in a book you don't have access to. Graywalls (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I found the Province sources when browsing newspapers.com. I'll have to get back to you with links as I'm now on a computer which doesn't have that login saved. As for the book, according to Worldcat it is held by 66 libraries, only 7 of which are in BC. It may have a local focus, but isn't "local coverage". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:AUD doesn't just concern geographical coverage, but field of interest too. If one tries, they could find books held by a number of libraries that talks about farms in North Plains, OR... or churches on Forest Grove, perhaps in some depth. Those have limited meaning in WP:NORG notability for those places named in the book. Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Question Was this such a notable case that it resulted in any laws being changed, anything changed at all? Is it taught in any textbooks? A search through old newspapers shows its mention along with other squats, they quite common. Dream Focus 01:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a valid point. There are locally themed books focused on Oregon Willamette Valley/Wine Country that has a list of vineyards that may have a many pages dedicated to each vineyard going into the vineyard's history, the family, then there are probably local papers that talk about those thing in depth, because they're of importance in the locality. I would say that's still not enough to satisfy creating an article here for that vineyard, unless you say, that vineyard is more greater significance than simply being talked about for a chapter in a local themed, topic specific book. I see no real indication that these group of houses that have become squatted are more than relatively common, run of the mill squatter occupations that happened to get picked up and covered fairly extensively in one source (per SIGCOV, series of coverage by one publication counts as one) Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That is not correct at all. We do not consider audience size or personal judgements, as that leaves us open to losing a lot of proper content, and this was a point made early on in Wikipedia history with the failed "Wikipedia:fame and importance" idea. Most subjects have limited audiences in one way or another, from species of beetle to 1970s music groups. It is writing not reading that counts. A vineyard that has its history, geography, economics, and whatnot independently documented in depth by multiple people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy is as valid a subject as a city that has history, geography, economics, and whatnot so documented.

      Indeed, to the contrary: local history books are often very good sources, especially compared to the alternative such as robot-creating articles from GNIS database entries. I have found, for example, the Arcadia Publishing ones invaluable for rewriting things such as Robert, California (AfD discussion) or Escalle, Larkspur, California, and equally for filtering out truly non-notable things like The Arboretum, Charlotte (AfD discussion). Local history books point the way, and newspapers and other stuff flesh thing out, correct errors, and suchlike.

      This subject is another case in point. The only major coverage that I could find, stating how important the author thought it was, turned out to be authored by one of the squatters. And the article started out sourced to squatter press releases. There's a lot more independent coverage of "Woodsquat" at Woodward's department store in Vancouver than there is of this. It's that that has actually escaped its authors/creators and been independently documented in depth, with background and analysis. A geography professor has discussed it, for example, in Blomley 2004, pp. 39–50, as has another professor, in a university press book (Robertson 2011). (There is nothing similar for this squat that I can find.) The erstwhile photograph manager of the Vancouver Sun includes it, per xyr talk on these sorts of things and presumably in the connected book Bird & Demers 2017. That is definitely multiple people.

      And once again Special:Whatlinkshere/Woodsquat tells us that we did not even know that we did not have this.

      • Blomley, Nicholas (2004). Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property. Routledge. ISBN 9781135954192.
      • Robertson, Kirsty (2019). Tear Gas Epiphanies: Protest, Culture, Museums. McGill-Queen's/Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation Studies in Art History. Vol. 27. McGill-Queen's Press. ISBN 9780773558298.
      • Bird, Kate; Demers, Charles (2017). City on Edge: A Rebellious Century of Vancouver Protests, Riots, and Strikes. Greystone Books. ISBN 9781771643139.
      Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The examples you provided are not organizations or companies.WP:NORG is a SNG with emphasis on sourcing to prevent promotional articles that organizations/companies articles are susceptible to. In notability, under WP:SIRS, media of limited interest (which local coverage would be) are specifically discounted for notability building purposes. But, with regard to this article, it seems like you're suggesting it fails to meet notability requirements. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
        • No, that is wrong. Excluding limited interest sources loses the beetles and the like, as their sources are limited interest too. It is sources that are not independent or trivial that are discounted, which includes press releases, even recycled ones masquerading as newspaper reporting, and stuff authored by the subject or its inventors/founders/creators/whatnot such as Bruce Gongola writing in that volume of West Coast Line. Few people seem to have noticed that Wulwick in West Coast Line is a press release by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty written in the first person. I know why Rhododendrites thinks that there's "an entire chapter" in a book about this, because I found the same book review. However, I've actually looked at that book. This "entire chapter" is first-person interviews with the squatters (all in quotation marks), followed by Squatters Alliance of Vancouver Press Statement (which is clear on its face), followed by Chu 1991 which is another first-person analysis by one of the squatters.
          • Chu, Keith (1991). "The Frances Steet Squats" (PDF). In Baxter, Sheila (ed.). Under the Viaduct: Homeless in Beautiful BC. Vancouver: New Star Books. pp. 80–88.
          The existence of multiple sources independent of the subject is the step that this subject fails on, as only the Vancouver Sun has independently published anything about this. (I haven't turned up the other newspaper sources waved at above.) There's lots of autobiographical stuff from the actual squatters themselves, but the subject hasn't escaped just them to be independently documented in depth by multiple other people as Woodsquat has.

          And if the squat that I hyperlinked isn't an organization or a company, then this also a squat isn't either; not that that matters because these principles apply well to everything, from beetles to squats.

          Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

          • , then do you have a !vote? Graywalls (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Forgot to ping. @Uncle G: Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Graywalls, throughout this discussion you keep arguing based on WP:CORP (WP:AUD, etc.). This isn't a corporation or organization. It's a set of six houses. We're looking for GNG, not NCORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I see it differently. They're a group of houses, organized by squatter occupants who have collectively organized them into "Frances Street Squats", a collective action of two of more people, thus I believe that NORG is appropriate Graywalls (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

They did organize themselves into an organization, which is mentioned in this article. This article is not about that organization. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I found a public-interest journalism source from 2016 that reports on the Frances Street Squats in the context of other squats, and mentions the documentary about the Frances Street Squats, which is linked in the External Links section of the article. This commentary, along with the documentary, appear to support WP:ORGDEPTH (the guideline specifically identifies a documentary film as an example of substantial coverage, and also states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary, which the source linked above and the documentary appear to satisfy), and there is another source, albeit from a student writing on a Pacific Rim College website in 2018, that describes the Frances Street Squats as "one of the largest and most notable public squats in Canadian history," which suggests that additional sources may WP:NEXIST. The article also is already more than a stub, which is part of what the WP:ORGDEPTH guideline seems concerned with avoiding. Beccaynr (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

op-ed. Did you see that this is an OPINION piece? "Opinion by Jakub Markiewicz" ? Graywalls (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I did, and per WP:ORGDEPTH, Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization (emphasis added), and it includes reporting on the Frances Street Squats and the reference to a screening of the documentary as part of the larger opinion article, which both seem to emphasize the enduring notability of the Frances Street Squats long past the initial burst of news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading there, I see coverage, but not sigcov. FWIW Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and it does not appear to be a trivial mention per that guideline due to the commentary and context, nor within the list of examples of what constitutes trivial coverage in WP:ORGDEPTH, e.g. listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete The coverage highlighted above is not sufficient, it fails WP:GNG - the coverage in independent sources is not in-depth - I’m sure I could find a similar depth of coverage about my local grocery store. Additionally WP:ORG is the relevant policy and that requires a greater depth of non-local coverage than GNG. Those arguing it is not an organisation but a collection of buildings should consider that it obviously fails WP:NBUILD too. --Pontificalibus 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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 12:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

List of properties of Hilton Worldwide

List of properties of Hilton Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is a directory that violates WP:NOTDIR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Aausterm (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep No, it's not a directory because it doesn't include contact information. It's a list and, insofar as it contains several blue links, that's fine. If the red links and plain entries don't seem useful then they can be removed by ordinary editing. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels has 120 articles, how does the scope of that category compare to what was intended with this list? Nom is a WP:VAGUEWAVE currently. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This violates the simple listings part of the WP:NOTDIR as it just provides a listing of locations. Most of them are non notable and the notable ones are already covered by the Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels. If this page is to be kept, it will need to be changed Aausterm (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • See WP:NOTDUP, we don't delete lists just because there is a category. Needing to change is not a reason for deletion, and it is common practice to limit many lists to only notable examples if that is what consensus determines is appropriate here. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a directory of mostly non notable hotel franchises and accompanied by their official websites. Clear cut WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This is WP:OR and fails WP:LISTN - there are no sources cited that confirm all these properties are operated, owned or franchised by Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. and not some other entity. Seeing a hotel branded as Hilton outside the US and assuming it should be on this list is a big leap that should not be made. Also, the group of hotels of Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. is not notable - there are no sources discussing this group in detail. There might be scope for a navigational list more closely related to the category of Category:Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotels, but this isn't it.----Pontificalibus 06:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass automobility

Mass automobility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neologism covered elsewhere such as Automobile dependence, History of the automobile etc. Darrelljon (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The OED has usage of automobility back to the 19th century and so it is an established part of the English language and therefore not a neologism. Moreover, the topic seems to be reasonably notable and so merits a page. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mass automobility suggests something distinct from mere automobility or other topics already covered such as automobile, history of the automobile, automobile dependence or modal share.--Darrelljon (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It crops up in some papers and books, e.g. "Harmonizing Cars and Humans in Japan’s Era of Mass Automobility", "The Automobile Industry Since 1945.", "Exploding Johannesburg: Driving in a Worldly City", Republic of Drivers: A Cultural History of Automobility in America, "The Car and the City" Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Automobile dependence, the articles essentially cover the exact same topic, the only difference being that this one goes of on an America-centric original research-ish tangent. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it does. Automobile dependency is essentially current urban planning, while History of the automobile covers the nuts and bolts of inventions. Mass automobility is a social phenomenon. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Automotive city covers urban planning. Automobile dependency covers the social phenomenon. Mass automobility is surplus here and the title implies something other than mere automobility. The level at which it became "mass" automobility is covered in the history of the automobile.--Darrelljon (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Pierre Szalowski

Pierre Szalowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR. As usual, every writer does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- the notability test requires some indication of his significance, such as winning major literary awards and/or having enough critical attention paid to his work in newspapers and literary review journals to pass WP:GNG. But this literally just states that he exists, and references that existence exclusively to his "our authors" profile on the directly affiliated website of his own publisher and a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog -- neither of which are sources that can support notability. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have far more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep there is decent coverage in French. I added four sources, including LaPresse, Le Devoir, and Voir, which are good publications here (in Quebec). His books have been subject to independent in-depth reviews. (General statement: pretty much all the coverage is in French, so if you cannot read French it is going to be difficult to assess this one.)--- Possibly (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I have now added nine sources. Four of those are for the Cinematheque quebecoise, which is a museum of Quebec cinema. What I am seeing overall is three decent-size independent profiles on him, a significant prize (Archambault prize), a tv episode that he was the subject of (Au Coeur du Cinema Quebecois) and three works that he wrote or directed are in the Cinematheque quebecoise's permanent collection. I am thinking this meets GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as Possibly's sources now demonstrate notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, further discussion can consider new sources that were brought up during the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see how the current content of the article fits WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Two books which almost nobody knows about? Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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 Doughnut touch the page. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The Simpsons

The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

List of The Simpsons episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

These articles is way too long, everybody knows The Simpsons ends in Season 11. -- Click here to read the April Declaration 2021 by User:TuxStrikesBack 02:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Do the Bartman per nom. Panini^📚 03:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep They'll never stop the Simpsons. Have no fears - they've got stories for years. 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Burn it down Preferably slowly and painfully. As they deserve.

-mr man man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.188.73.178 (talk • contribs) 10:17, April 1, 2021 (UTC)

• D’oh! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah yeah. Hah hah!. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 with macOS and Linux. April Fool's is over now. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Microsoft

Microsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Allegedly in talks to take over Discord. NotCory (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Automated comment per Cyberbot I. Panini^📚 03:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Replace with Linux. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – Preferably with Hannah Montana Linux. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Macrohard. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Linux alternatives. jp×g 04:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Mac OS worst clone ever--119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Apple Inc. as Microsoft Windows is just a copy of macOS. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Linux. User3749 (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - It's the best operating system. Bill Gates (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move - I suggest we add some features and rebrand it as Microsoft Plus! >>BEANS X2t 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Foreshadowing? >>BEANS X2t 18:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• DELETE With fire. They just copied the mac. Steve Jobs (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge with Microshaft. Casspedia (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I tried to delete it but computer says no. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge with Apple Inc. and Linux so we can finally have cross-platform compatibility. --Heymid (contribs) 12:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to Monopoly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:HOAX. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your Lie in April

Your Lie in April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It's April, so this is a WP:LIE and should be deleted accordingly. Link20XX (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Nodame Cantabile, at least the main girl doesn't die in that one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• God, another Anime deletion? Panini^📚 02:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 😂 Gimubrc (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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' is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Anime

Anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable art form. I mean c'mon, who watches anime? Link20XX (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Anime belongs in the trash. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and build a huge statue of Wikipe-tan, my forever waifu. Start making Wikipe-tan full body pillows NOW! --BlueCrabRedCrab 00:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Hayao Miyazaki's immortal words: "Anime was a mistake". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Amine, silly typo ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge with United States - we need moar anime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Manga since manga and anime versions of any given series are generally one-for-one adaptations. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 You will never become God. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The Day I Became a God

The Day I Became a God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Jun Maeda's worst series ever and one most watchers would want to forget. I say erase it from existence. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as sacriligeous. Panini^📚 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, ehh I think its better than Charlotte. Link20XX (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Disbelieve, what is this "god" you speak of? —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:Blasphemy 141.92.129.42 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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' day is over. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hololive Production

Hololive Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Konlamy konrushi yo dayo FAQ nanora peko poruka oruka poi knight cup yametekudastop no waifu friends nenenenenenenenenenenenenene ground pound a kikkiriki inaaaaaa deadbeats nonstop nut november hey moona docchi docchi i'm god shuba shuba NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE -10hp desk-kun help vtubers are ruining my life please get me out of this hole but sui-chan will literally axe me help help help ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What? Panini^📚 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep hololive wa warukunai yo ne? クロッド (読んで) 02:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Hail the vTubers.. (non-admin closure) HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Virtual YouTuber

Virtual YouTuber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

VTubers were a mistake and so are their fans and the management companies. Suggest deleting the menace once and for all so that peace may be restored to weebdom.

Also nominating the following articles:

Hololive Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Kizuna Ai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Out of this house. Out of this house. Panini^📚 02:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I rate them "i don't know what they are" out of ten, as such they should be kept. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, but fix typo in title by moving to Bacharu Yuchuba. jp×g 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, for reasons that are pretty obvious, I think. AdoTang (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ryan's World, where the real VTubers are. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to "Liver", the obvious supreme terminology. クロッド (呼んで) 19:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Maybe I wasn't meant for this world.... (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Genshin Impact

Genshin Impact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A fad that's already starting to die out. Suggest deletion or at best a redirect to Uma Musume Pretty Derby. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ghost of Tsushima because I get the two confused. Panini^📚 02:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild as it is so obviously a ripoff. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Military dictatorship in El Salvador. Giraffe ^{(who stole my "r"?)} 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete the Ruin Guard, not this article. Fortunately I have a Level 80 Lisa so I should be able to delete it in a couple of clicks. (Pyro + Electro, Pyro + Hydro, Pyro + Cryo) Aasim (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and ban any users associated with it. AdoTang (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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'll close it later. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 00:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Procrastination

Procrastination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Do not reply to this AfD on April Fools' Day, but instead procrastinate (and then it would already be too late to reply to this AfD). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.

• The the Tanker4390 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• I’ll decide how to vote on this tomorrow. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Unlikely, Won't fix Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This AFD has gone fishing.

I'll get around to voting on this eventually. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Discuss for as long as possible so I can procrastinate through procrastination. Cheesetron246 Say hi! 03:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: appears to be a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I'll do it later. There's more interesting stuff on Youtube... Yes, That Will (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ehhhhhhhhh I'm not sure. Maybe do this again next year and I will have a decision. Link20XX (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• This obviously needs to be relisted, preferably multiple times. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Relist this discussion so I can make an actual verdict later. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 06:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. See source code for "joke". -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to procrastinate.
Relisting comment: Should not be closed until next year's April Fools.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Go out and do something productive instead of procrastinating by reading this article. --Heymid (contribs) 12:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'll get to it later. MainPeanut (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to main page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Trashed.. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Paper Mario: The Origami King

Paper Mario: The Origami King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The game is not Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. As a true Paper Mario fan every game has fallen from grace and is stupid. I WANT XP. Panini^📚 02:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FLAT Tanker4390 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Cut because it's paper. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment That was flat-out as rough as sandpaper. Go back to the drawing board on that one. Panini^📚 02:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge into Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to [[Trash Paper Mario:Origami King]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.10.81 (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Fold into Origami. Maybe an Orizuru? 2A07:7840:0:100:BD80:ABD4:3491:47E5 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Give us a TTYD reboot instead. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Shred, staple, and glue, no paper is immune to office supplies. —moonythepuppet (Braden N.) 19:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Prcdrl cls pr th rqst of the grmmr plc. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Disemvoweling

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling
• Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling (4th nomination)

Disemvoweling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

E ou o oo ue a i i aiay ei. I i e ou eee i aie. Aa_eeaee02 (a ae o a | a i o u i'e oe) 01:55, 1 Ai 2021 (U)

• ee e :IA. auooeiaa5 ^aoe 02:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Cnsnnt —pthncdr (tlk | cntrbs) 02:37, 1 prl 2021 (TC)
• Delete per WP:GERMAN. Panini^📚 02:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Rdrct to Dsmvwlng ILostMyOriginalAccount (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Mrg wth nly cnnct 141.92.129.42 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Kp bcs dsmvwlng shld b rmvng vwls nt kpng thm Gmbrc (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • U I o uo ieoei, o I a ieooai iea. Auay_eeaee (a a o a | a i o u i oe) 19:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Kp pr ncnt Srlts, Brhm, Ssc, & Jcb.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Gotye

Gotye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of lasting notability. versacespacetalk to me 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Just somebody that I used to know. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep because the word Belgium is fun to say. Panini^📚 02:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• You didn't have to cut this page out and make it like it never happened. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete – WP:FANCRUFT of a non-notable YouTube video. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, is clearly notable despite its graphic content. Just because it's a shock site doesn't mean we can't have an article about it (WP:NOTCENSORED). jp×g 04:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - what a pretentious way of spelling gotcha Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Got ya! --Heymid (contribs) 12:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Draftified to await G13. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Fall Guys

Fall Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A fad that died faster than you can say sus. Doesn't have lasting notability. I say delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Fall guy, because yes. Panini^🥪 01:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fall Guy, which re-redirects itself back because yes ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 02:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Fall Guy per WP:SINGULAR. ILostMyOriginalAccount (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Eject yellow is sus --Cyan (talk | contribs)
• Userfy to User:Willy on Wheels~enwiki. Opal|zukor_(discuss) 18:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 cancel. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Tokyo Babylon 2021

Hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete this anime per WP:PLAGIARISM, and given that it's already starting from scratch, I'm sure CLAMP agrees. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, don't make me GoHands over this one. Link20XX (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Bakugan Panini^📚 02:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

e oowi iuio i a aie eae o e ooe eeio o e aie eo. eae o o oiy i. ueue oe ou e ae o e aoiae iuio ae (u a e aie' a ae o i a eeio eie). o uer ei ou e ae o i ae.

e eu a ee e :O. (o-ai oue) JJP_Master 02:33, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)

ooa

ooa (ei | a | io | oe | eee | i | a | logs | ie) – (ie A)

(i oue: ooe (oo · e · oa · ee iae ·  e) · E · O ·   ·  )

Ei i ee o iou e. auooeiaa5 ^aoe 01:08, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)

• Ee e iieia:Aie o eeio/oe. <ie ee ee>_ae 01:29, 1 Ai 2021
• ee e IEI u O --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:33, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)
• ee ai ie i i aoi i o Eae (a) 01:49, 1 Ai 2021 (U)
• E. Panini^📚 02:31, 1 Ai 2021 (UTC)

• Eoae —ooei (ae) 03:29, 1 Ai 2021 (U)

e aoe iuio i eee a a ahie o e eae. eae o o oiy i. ueue oe ou e ae o e oiae iuio ae (u a e aie' a ae o i a eeio eie). o ue ei ou e ae o i ae.

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 2.7182818284590452353602874713527. (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Irrational number

Irrational number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Not possible to insert an infinitely long and non-repeating decimal without using symbols like π and ${\sqrt {2}}$. Also, Hippasus' discovery of irrational numbers had caused him to be punished! --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Imaginary number. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: I like eating pie! Sschr16 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete because I hate geometry. Panini^📚 02:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Round to an Integer. —moonythepuppet (Braden N.) 03:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Approximate via Continued fractions until a consensus can be reached. Pie3141527182 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin that this user, themselves an approximated irrational number, may have a conflict of interest. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to a rational number such as 2/3. A redirect to Uranus could also work to fix this problem. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why redirect a mathematical concept to a planet? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to WP:ARBCOM#Members. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Irrational numbers go on for ever, and there are an infinite number of them. 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - The most common letter in the local language is an irrational number. In fact, every vote to delete uses this number. I would like users such as AlphaBta135 to note this fact and reconsider his/her vote. 147.161.9.166 (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Irrational article. --Heymid (contribs) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to the furthest corner of the universe. It can't do any harm there. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: What if the universe is e. g. an ellipsoid, a torus, or a sphere? They don't have corners (as in, vertices). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Thesaurus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dictionary

Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page should be deleted per the policy WP:NOTDICT which states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete our policies are very clear on this issue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICT. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Blatent violation of WP:NOTDICT ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 01:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. A clear competitor to Wiktionary, and we need to snuff out the competition. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Wiktionary: Wiktionary is the only dictionary, why would we need this page? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Cancel because I can probably find racist words in there. Panini^📚 02:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikt:Dictionary. jp×g 04:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete useless page - doesn't even have anything about Gullibility in it. 141.92.129.42 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia should be practicing what it preaches, which is don't make dictionaries on Wikipedia. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 21:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Slang dictionary. Vernacular vocabulary is much better than formal usage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 🗿. (non-admin closure) JJP_Master 15:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Moai

Moai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Where's my gum gum, dum dum? 🗿 Epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• 🗿--BlueCrabRedCrab 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 — Goszei (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 01:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• !🗿. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 Tanker4390 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• & 🗿 Panini^📚 02:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 クロッド (読んで) 03:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 Link20XX (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 jp×g 04:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 reppop^talk 04:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• WHat's Squidward's house doing all the way on Wikipedia? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 per snowball clause Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 —🗿🗿 (🗿 | 🗿) 12:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿 per BlueCrabRedCrab et al Gimubrc (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 🗿. MainPeanut (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The subject deleted itself by disintegration during production due to poor quality control. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Boeing

Boeing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Their planes are either unsafe, have quality-control issues, delayed, or vaporware. This dinosaur of a company should be deleted or merged with Airbus. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Airbus's A380 is hundreds of times better then the 747. If only I could afford tickets. --BlueCrabRedCrab 01:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd rather be on a plane that crashes than one built by the Europeans. USA! USA! 🎆🦅🍔🥧⚾ {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Boing! Panini^📚 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Bow-ing! —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 so long, gay Mario. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Super Mario 3D All-Stars

Super Mario 3D All-Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unfortunately, against the wishes of every Nintendo fan and gamer on the planet, the game is no longer for sale and its sale pages have been deleted. As such, we must regretfully and reluctantly follow the wishes of Nintendo and delete our article for the game as well, as if pretending the game never existed.

Also including Super Mario Bros. 35 for the same reason.

Super Mario Bros. 35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Mario is dead —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Huff Per the above. Casspedia (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hoo, per above. Panini^🥪 01:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ha, per nom. Panini^🥪 01:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yahoo! for reasons stated above. Panini^🥪 01:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Suggestion: I bought it before deadline so yeah!
• Delete Super Mario Bros. 35: End of Article Service--119.237.10.81 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete It's been completely discontinued due to the murder of Mario by Nintendo. Computerfan0 (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "So long eh Bowser." The game is no longer accessible after March 31st. --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Buh-bye Mario! Foxnpichu (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Mumma-Mia I have yet to even fish 1 of the games yet. Yes, That Will (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 another cancelled one. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Caillou

Caillou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The show's been cancelled, let's do the same to its Wikipedia page. Marioedit8 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The nominator is solely responsible for getting #CalliouIsOverParty trending on Twitter with his many Twitter accounts. This is a clear conflict of interest, and, how do we know Marioedit8 won’t turn into Marioedit8 and his 103619451047 sockpuppets??? They already did that on Twitter, so  Looks like a duck to me.. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

   1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  •  18446744073709551616x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Let's cancel the article the same way that God canceled his hair. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Question How do you say "Cancel" in Canadian? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Us Canadians are too nice to cancel someone, hence my Keep vote above. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• You say it in Moose. Panini^📚 02:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Just because the shows been cancelled doesn't mean delete the article. I'm also pretty sure that there reliable sources, I'm not sure, but it looks notable. JennilyW (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think this user needs to realise what's happening. Each day you learn some more. Panini^📚 02:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete for no particular reason. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Block for countless violations of WP:CIVIL. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Might as well, since most people don’t like it. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ground for 20210401 years per GoAnimate#"Grounded" videos. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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/Earth (20th nomination)

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

The result was ███████████. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler (media)

Spoiler (media) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:SPOIL and WP:NDA. Redundant to the WP:Content disclaimer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Spoiler (car) because it's a better article. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• ███████████ █████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ --████████████████████████ 00:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Han Solo dies per I just watched Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Panini^🥪 01:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Midnight from MHA dies in Battle per Adam Levine has a small penis --Nhoj609 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• O Is The Master per just heard in the plane -- Click here to read the April Declaration 2021 by User:TuxStrikesBack 02:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Rosebud was his !vote. jp×g 04:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

delete - per WP:I am your Father 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per internet policy. Romeo and Juliet die in the end of the play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Blue Hat (talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Neegan kills Dumbledore. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was April Fools is over and so is Stadia. (non-admin closure) MorphinBrony (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Google Stadia

Google Stadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A service that's the butt of jokes of the gaming industry, which is essentially on life support due to the closure of their gaming studios. We don't even know if Stadia will still exist two years from now (if it does, mea culpa). Should the article follow the path of Stadia Games and Entertainment? Time to add it to ? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete lol get gud your hotdog water Panini^📚 01:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stadio Olimpico per Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 drift. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 00:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Joy-Con

Joy-Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article keeps drifting too much. This stupid device needs to be deleted until that damn drifting problem is addressed. Or at least until the new Switch comes out. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delakie, oops, my joay cosn keap dsroftieng si ist hrsd ty typo. Link20XX (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• 'Drealke'" wenhever is tyr to plkaye maruioa kart and ia am adirt in ajoiycon itg si sahard aif am asuing nintendo~~/BlueCrabRedCrab 00:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Funny reference to "Tokyo Drift" but I can't write out the lyrics because of coypright. _Oopsie... Panini^📚 02:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• drift parking —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Needs to learn to keep drifting in Mario Kart. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Re-Buy I need to finish Super Mario 3D All-Stars. Yes, That Will (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 press F to pay respects. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mario

Mario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mario has been executed. JOEBRO64 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Good. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete He’s existed and been the top figure in video game history for so many years now, and everybody knows him. Come on, let’s get something newer! --Heymid (contribs) 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Heymid, here you go JOEBRO64 00:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, and the article has clearly been hijacked by COI editors to whitewash the subject's many war crimes. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mario Draghi, the true Super Mario. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "So long eh Bowser." The game is no longer accessible after March 31st. --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • True? I can't access the game? If true, delete it! April Fool 2021 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Waluigi. You have entered the comedy area —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Oh yeah, Wario Time" Clearly Wario deserves more attention than red moustache man! Yes, That Will (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tux. We got 3D All-Stars on the list, but why no Kart? -- Click here to read the April Declaration 2021 by User:TuxStrikesBack 02:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Rename to Mario (character) and move Mario Batali here as primary topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• MaaaaAAAAAAAmmmMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAmmmmmAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaMMMMMMMMmmmmMMMMAAAAA Panini^📚 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Luigi. Luigi is so much better than Mario! (I’m capping lmao)
• Redirect to Luigi. I suppose we can go with the best next thing. (It’s way cooler anyway) —-User:Landthins15 — Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as the subject of this article clearly doesn’t exist. 180.150.37.117 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - He was invented by some guy, therefore, the article obviously fails WP:A11. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (character), because Sonic is way better than Mario. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 16:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wario because of wumbo. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Luigi - Mario's brother. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Luigi doesn't seem like a suitable page to redirect to. Namcokid47 18:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete nn plumber Harej (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

The result was The boat has been freed. It swims once again. (non-admin closure) Panini^📚 17:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ever Given

Ever Given (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It's finally free! This article isn't needed anymore. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nuke it And melt it for scrap, and make a giant statue of Wikipe-tan in Tokyo with the metal. --BlueCrabRedCrab 00:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Relocate to the Suez Canal. OwO (what's this?) 02:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been freed

• 
  Be free!

• Move away from the Canal, don't block the route! April Fool 2021 (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Suez Canal as it is not notable otherwise. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Call the fire brigade They will know what to do. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wait for someone to develop psychic powers I can’t think of any possible way that would backfire. IlSoupylI (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Sink it. We're out of options. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Get rid of the excavators they're causing more blockage now what is hAPPENING GlitchMaster2 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• WP:TNT to clear a path... only to have the debris clog the canal again. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Boaty McBoatface. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Relocate to Great Bitter Lake. - Ian1231100 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 with List of islands in the Mediterranean to expand the Suez Canal. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sinai Peninsula

Sinai Peninsula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Remember the Ever Given that was stuck in the Suez Canal? If we get rid of this peninsula, we will never have to worry about incidents like this ever again! JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - getting rid of the peninsula will also put an end to this. Since Wikipedia is in the real world, deletion will clearly make the world safe for democracy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep 600,000 people live on the Peninsula. We can't make all of these people homeless just because of one stuck ship. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • In that case, merge with List of islands in the Mediterranean until enough houses are built elsewhere. ILostMyOriginalAccount (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge with Mediterranean Sea and move the people to Africa. 14.0.164.60 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Exodus, not notable outside of that plot. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Panini^📚 02:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Israel. 217.117.125.88 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Sell to Palestine per Kushner.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Mediterranean Sea. Nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE, moving suffices and preserves important page history. Tercer (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 ejection of the user below. Please do modify it. Subsequent comments should not be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). Lots of further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to eject Old Naval Rooftops per WP:SELFREPORT, WP:NOVENTSINMAINSPACE, WP:AMONGUSSOCK and WP:SUSSS. As well, Category:Wikipedians who self-reported shall be added to O.N.R.'s userpage so they can forever remember their mistake. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Among Us

Among Us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Where? One Blue Hat^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 19:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This page looks sus. I saw it vent. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Eject - This article is a sus impostor. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• O.N.R. sus There are no vents in mainspace. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Eject Old Naval Rooftops instead - they’re lying, I saw this page scan. As well, Sprit of Eagle said there aren’t any vents in mainspace. Sus... D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Eject O.N.R. per WP:SELFREPORT —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Illuminati triangle is better. Invalid^OS_talk 00:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Eject O.N.R. Clearly just the imposter's sockpuppet account. —moonythesock (Sock P.) 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Eject Oshwah He is clearly sus. --BlueCrabRedCrab 00:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Self Report O.N.R. sus. Mainspace's vents closed for the airship update, right? ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 00:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Eject O.N.R. Sus. Casspedia (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Old Naval Rooftops was An Impostor.
1 Impostor remains.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposed ejection. Please do modify it. Subsequent comments should not be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). Lots of 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 deleted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (non-admin closure) JJP_Master 21:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Cyberpunk 2077

Cyberpunk 2077 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It's too buggy! Delete this per WP:BUG. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep The developers have already updated the game with bug fixes. Just update it! JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per the excellent rationale of the nominator. Why didn't I ever think of doing this? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BUG. Way to go, nominator! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Grand Theft Auto V which is the superior game. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This will get better in 2077 ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 01:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, but will it? Panini^📚 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Breathtaking game. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, no, you're breathtaking! Sincerely, Marksomnian. ^{(Talk to me)} (if you reply, please {{ping|Marksomnian}}) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect CD Projekt to Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ask if these shrimp are fresh. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify: this is clearly WIP. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 15:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:ILIKEIT and WP:SUPERVOTE (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 01:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Bee

Bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:HOAX, according to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Molandfreak, you forget that the bee, of course, flies anyway, because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. JOEBRO64 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and replace every instance of bee in the encyclopedia with the script of Bee Movie. –Fredddie™ 00:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Bee Movie and have a complete script reading of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wookiepedia. Articles on Star Wars creatures do not belong on Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. He's got bees! NO BEES! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Bee Movie. We don't need a hoax article based off a movie's main character. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G3. Vaticidalprophet 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete It's the truth. A bee should never be able to fly! It's proved through all known laws of aviation. --BlueCrabRedCrab 00:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 continue the lockdown. April fools close (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Lockdown

Lockdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I just want to go outside. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep You may not love lockdown, but Kanye West does. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Coraonavirus is fake news. --BlueCrabRedCrab 00:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)--BlueCrabRedCrab 00:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to COVID-19. Thanks to covid, we can't get out. April Fool 2021 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Globally lock. JJP_Master 01:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per WP:LOCK. Panini^📚 02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to COVID-19 - Thank you covid, I love you full Dede2008 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - 99% of people surveyed said they didn't need this
• Keep - too soon. Suggest 50-year moratorium before this is discussed again. Vpab15 (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• On behalf of all those who went through one; DELETE! DELETE! DELETE! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment We can't delete it untile we have deleted COVID-19. So will someone nominate it already!! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment April Fools is over, right? –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 decommission 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 Recommision. April fools' is over now (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Route 66

U.S. Route 66 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

U.S. Route 66 has been decommissioned since 1985 and still is to this day! --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Recomission I like the roadside attractions. --BlueCrabRedCrab 00:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Kick. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Remove Route 69 is better. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 00:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nice. –Fredddie™ 01:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is not sponsored by Freewayjim [1] --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep because it's good screen-saver potential. Panini^📚 03:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NGEO. There have been many articles created about non-notable locations and highways (such as this one) simply because there used to be a road at such-and-such coordinates. It's high time we cleaned them out. jp×g 03:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Radiator Springs is on that road. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Replace with Interstate 40.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was This discussion never existed. (non-admin closure) Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 23:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hoax

Hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found a hoax on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are not allowed per WP:HOAX. I am open to speedy deletion (G3), but I need people's input to be sure that deletion is the best move. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Uranus because I said so. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:IAR. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:G3 as a hoax. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Your mom for reason. Tanker4390 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep; the purpose of the project is to improve people's knowledge of the world, and an important fact about the world is that it is filled with lies. For this reason, we should seek to maximize the amount of lies and false information on Wikipedia. jp×g 04:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You had me in the first half, I'm not gonna lie. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge with Australia (and it's typo Austria) and 5G Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Hoax isn't real and doesn't exist. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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/Japan

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

The result was Speedy keep, 🦀April Fools is gone🦀. (non-admin closure) GMXping! 23:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Crab Rave

Crab Rave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

🦀 The meme is gone! 🦀 Let the meme die! 🦀 Jalen Folf (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Crab cakes time Casspedia (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Sans Undertale Panini^📚 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Go into my eyes TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per Silver being a twink. SleepForever (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• No I will keep the meme alive! Yes, That Will (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Cook per nom nom nom —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete the observable universe. The rest of the universe can be deleted later. (non-admin closure) JJP_Master 21:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Universe

Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:COI. April Fool 2021 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete because since were deleting Earth we might as well just go all the way. Panini^📚 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Initiate impromptu false vacuum decay. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete There are an infinite number of other universes; why should this one get special consideration? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep because that's where my favorite band is from. jp×g 04:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete to make way for a multiversal bypass. You were warned. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED applies; possible WP:TOOSOON, may achieve something later to warrant its own article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete:  Redundant, we have Multiverse already. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 08:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete - the universe is big - the point of an article is to summarize it's contents, but the universe is so big that no article can possibly do it justice. 141.92.129.41 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Transreality - replace with a more interesting universe ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. It is mostly ok, except the Earth part keeps getting vandalised. That is where humans live, which is probably not a coincidence. I suggest we get rid of the humans and keep the rest. Vpab15 (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Do you understand what will happen if the Universe was deleted? Everything and I mean EVERYTHING would cease to exist! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete half to restore balance. GlitchMaster2 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Blow up. We don't need it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Blow it up with antimatter! ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep unless the multiverse theory is true. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Univers —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. per WP:SYNTH. April fools' Day is over now. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Synthesizer

Should be deleted per WP:SYNTH. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Synthesizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Keep per WP:NOTSYNTH. JJP_Master 01:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.-KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Final Countdown (song). –Fredddie™ 02:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguate", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why. Panini^📚 03:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• ⎍⎍⎍⎍⎍ —moonythepanda (Braden N.) 03:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SIZE. Popcornfud (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Eject User:Jimbo Wales. (non-admin closure) Tanker4390 (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Red

Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

1. WP:SUS 2. It's not even a userbox Tanker4390 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pokémon Red and Blue. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Red is sus. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Green as they are the same for some people (not me). –Fredddie™ 02:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Blue because I'm blue, da ba dee da ba daa Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa. Panini^📚 02:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Eject. I saw Red vent, and then he followed me to Electrical. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Eject very sus. OwO (what's this?) 02:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Report dead body. JJP_Master 02:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and eject green instead. Red (Talk)
• Redirect to List of The Blacklist characters#Raymond Reddington per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Kinu: Defer to Global blacklist Opal|zukor^(discuss) 09:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Eject blue instead. He went into electrical, I was on cams. GREEN SAW ME DO MEDBAY! Red's sockpuppet (talk)
• Delete OHmagod guys! why aren't we trying to eliminate this existential threat immediatly!!!11 Red is soooo SUS!!!! -GoatLordServant ☂ ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 11:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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.