Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human (2nd nomination)

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

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

The result was speedy keep, happy April Fool's Day everyone. Non-admin closure to prevent time wasting. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

All cited sources are human-made. Either look for sources written by non-humans or delete this. Alexius08 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I sure hope you at the least reported this huge issue to the conflict of interest noticeboard. In fact, this is so huge, we may have to request arbitration. –MuZemike 04:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...with human arbiters? Alexius08 (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said arbitrators were human? –MuZemike 05:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I would like to register my opinion early in what is sure to be a contentious, controversial and chronologically lengthy debate. I believe that "human"s are notable. Granted, I can't actually find any sourcing to confirm this, but I have a strong and urgent "gut feeling" that this topic holds promise and that there is a place for it on Wikipedia. I may tag this article for rescue, in fact, so strongly do I believe in the notability of the "human." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I like lots of humans. CTJF83 chat 05:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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