Wikipedia:April Fools/Deletion review

This page contains joke deletion review requests made in the spirit of April Fools' Day.

Instructions

edit
  • Please follow Wikipedia rules, especially the Rules for Fools, when making a joke deletion review.
  • This page accepts joke DRVs for joke or serious pages. Serious DRVs (for joke or serious pages) should instead go to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
  • Please use the following syntax: {{subst:drv2|page=<article name>|xfd_page=<xfd link>|reason=<nomination rationale>}} ~~~~.
  • Deletion reviews run until midnight, April 2 (UTC), shortly after which they will be closed.
  • Please avoid closing DRVs with reasons such as "unfunny" since humour is subjective. However, this should not preclude a DRV made in bad taste from being removed.

Active discussions

edit

Recent discussions

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bobby Witt Jr. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Mr. Witt had a year's time - counting from April Fools' Day 2022 - to cut his hair short, yet he didn't. Therefore, we should deletion-review this AfD so that his article is deleted.[April Fools!] Not·Really·Soroka 23:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen discussion per my comment above. Not·Really·Soroka 00:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2020

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2020 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A 2007 AfD determined that 2020 was a keep. I think it is becoming abundantly clear this decision needs to be reviewed.[April Fools!] Sulfurboy (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2019

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Deletion review (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was a pretty obvious consensus to delete in the MFD discussion yet it was somehow kept. I really think it's obvious that this should be overturned to delete. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • HammerTime per WP:HAMMER. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joke nominations stopped being funny sometime around 2006. If this had actually been humorous, you wouldn't need a big honking template labeling as such.
    On the plus side, I'd been trying to figure out exactly which page title had the history of WP:Undeletion policy before it was pseudo-deleted by redirection, and the MFD linked here pointed me at it. I'd thought it had been around later than 2007 (maybe it wasn't trimmed so draconically when initially merged?); also, I'm somewhat horrified that it advocates wheel-warring-in-all-but-name if you're an admin and you think a page's deletion didn't follow policy to the letter. —Cryptic 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2011

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Don't delete this page (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone deleted it! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2009

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Red link (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

If we don't have a page on red link, how will we ever know what red links are for? Red links are important to building the project. Furthermore, there're plenty of incoming links, so there's clearly quite the demand for an article on one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It _was_ Red, but now is blue. Sad, sad link. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2008

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I hereby appeal the inappropriate deletion of this page as Wikipedia:CSD#G1 despite the fact that Wikipedia:Patent nonsense suggests G1 does not apply. There's also a logical paradox here, in that, how is it valid to delete this page, when this page is requesting the deletion of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? Surely it cannot be valid to delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion thereby rendering Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion invulnerable to deletion. JayHenry (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Human (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closer totally disregarded the consensus to speedy delete... and I'm saying this as a keep voter Sceptre (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC) -Scepter (talkcontribs) is a human and has made few or no other edits outside this topic for the past two minutes. [reply]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Deletion review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Completely out of process that it was never nominated for deletion! The nonexistent closer obtained no consensus for doing nothing. Abusive and out of process! I say overturn per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion... Salt and ketchup! IronGargoyle (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per consensus. --JayHenry (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn based on clear evidence here! -- Kesh (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap! according to this AfD, this page should be deleted right now! Check out the logs! I'm going to have to change my !vote to Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least if this one gets deleted, there can be no process warring over it. "Take it to DR... oh." Orderinchaos 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shock the Monkey per all the above Beeblbrox (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

See also

edit