Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (2nd 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 derp. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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

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

If we get rid of AfD, we'll finally be able to keep up with the backlog at WP:DELREV -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is the best way to get a questionable article deleted. Frankly, this nomination doesn't even make sense. G S Palmer (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - is this is an April fools joke? G S Palmer (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:FOOTY, and WP:ANIMAL. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am aware of the date, but maybe not a bad idea. Sure, we'd get a lot more resumes, advertorials, and pub footballers, but would free up editors' time. (And can you really have too many pub footballers?) 3-month trial? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:56, 1 April 2014 (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.