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

The result of the discussion was: move to a subpage of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfunny AfDs from April Fools 2021

In the past, joke deletions with low participation have been deleted per CSD G6 after April Fools' Day is over. per Wikipedia:Rules for Fools - none of these are particularly funny or got a high amount of participation. While I feel that G6 would be appropriate for all of these, I'd rather avoid controversy by nominating them and get a clearer consensus instead. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deletion how about moving them all to be subpages of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021 without leaving a redirect and removing them from the AFD logs and the like? That keeps them out of the way of the actual AFD process and makes it clear to anyone finding them that they were joke nominations, but allows anyone who wants to find them to look them up. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete all ~~EXCEPT for Time travel. All others had only one participant, whereas Time Travel had several. The fact it was closed by a party pooper doesn't mean it should be deleted.~~ Corrected my comment upon learning the wrong Time Travel was posted JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JackFromWisconsin: I think the nomination has a typo in it and they actually meant to nominate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel (2nd nomination) from this year, which did only get one reply. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that makes more sense. Definitely delete it since it has only one participant. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the nomination. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: Could you check if you did tag the wrong AfD discussion by mistake and swap it out with the right one if so? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already did so. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore me, I got an edit conflict, and didn't check who had replied, sorry. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FOOLS. ——Serial 13:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all until next year. MainPeanut (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 90% of them, they are just harmless April Fools' nominations. While yes joke AfDs with low participation are typically deleted per Wikipedia:G6, I believe such deletion should be immediately after April Fools' day, not two weeks later. The ones where the only participant was the nominee and where the close reason is something like "April Fools' is over", I would say delete. Aasim (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ones with only 1 vote. All of these are harmless; clearing up ones with only one vote can help declog the 4/1 AfD pipeline. Abstain from all others. Casspedia (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casspedia: all of these have only one vote, except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mappa mundi, which has two. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most if not all. The funniness of the joke does not change the fact that it is one. Frankly, I don't see how any of these pages comply with CSD G6. Here are the requirements:
- Deleting empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
- Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves.
- Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace.
- Deleting templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at WP:TfD.

These April Fools' jokes fit none of these. If you are basing your arguments on the last requirement, it's not a template. Even if you made an exception and looked at AfDs as well, these pages are all jokes and not legitimate nominations. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 16:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diriector Doc: I didn't think G6 was a good criteria, hence me nominating them here instead. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to subpages of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021, as we shouldn't delete them from history. — csc^-1 21:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find these jokes "unfunny" here, the issue is participation. Some jokes on Wikipedia just draw more responses than others and jokes can always be reattempted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - low participation is the key factor here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to subpages of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021. Funny or not, attempts at humour are welcome, and using MfD to separate the funny from the unfunny is not a good use of the process, with all of its non-trivial costs. Just fix it. Moving out of the MFD archives and into subpages of a suitable place is easily a sufficient fix. It requires just someone to do it. Reserve MfD for things that really should not be allowed to continue to be available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; might also boycott April Fools '22. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and potentially Move per the rationale of SmokeyJoe.

Firstly, the notion of using MfD to subjectively "decide" what is humorous and what is not is absurd.
It states in the Notes section of the Wikipedia:Rules for Fools page that in the past, April Fools jokes have been deleted per WP:G6, but the G6 criteria does not actually apply to such content whatsoever.
I'm a bit aghast that folks are making up their own arbitrary "rules" here, such as deleting entries with only one response or low participation.
How would deletion of these contributions improve Wikipedia? Does blocking the general public from viewing past April Fools jokes serve any actual purpose? It does not; it would simply serve to deteriorate Wikipedia.
Sorry, and no offense, as all are entitled to their own opinions, but this comes across a bit as attempted WP:IDONTLIKEIT censorship.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: ...the notion of using MfD to subjectively "decide" what is humorous and what is not is absurd. I completely agree with this. Humour is subjective; if you don't like it, don't consume it. I also agree with your other points, all of which have validity, but this is the main one. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 16:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000 and Diriector Doc: to clarify, I wasn't objectively saying these were unfunny - I needed a group title and that's what came to mind. I do think that joke AfDs with little participation are more harmful than the little value they add - as they live in the pseudo AfD-space. If they had decent participation, sure, the humor value is worth it, but for these, I think deletion is justified. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable discussions. I agree with Casspedia, about deleting ones that don't have more than 1 non-originator vote or have not gotten notability on other Wikipedia projects or outside Wikipedia. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Wikipedia namespace pages are exempt from having to meet notability guidelines. Otherwise, project pages and other non-mainspace pages would have to meet WP:GNG to exist. Fact is, it is unlikely that this very MfD page has received independent, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so under part of the rationale you have provided, (being notable outside of Wikipedia), this page, along with your commentary, should also be deleted. Similarly, Wikipedia namespace pages are not required to be important or "notable" to various Wikiprojects. If they were, then the entire Module namespace would qualify for deletion (e.g. Module:Example), because there's no Module Wikiproject. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North America, okay just archive it with subpages per WP:FOOLS. Otherwise, this is a trainwreck. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived for posterity?

Comment: For what it's worth, I took a screenshot of the AfD log on April Fool's Day, so these technically aren't gone forever. -FASTILY 04:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can we add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan to this list? It's also unfunny and the closure might be considered racist. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely tasteless. Aseleste should've been blocked for that. ——Serial 08:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. I will avoid them. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move. There's one day a year where you get to make jokes. Why does anyone give a damn? The insistence that nothing amusing happen here (even accidentally) confuses me. jp×g 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as April Fools day jokes.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all of them are funny.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This MfD isn't deciding whether these are "funny" or not, but is deciding whether these are useful to the encyclopedia project. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JackFromWisconsin consensus about April Fools' Day is found at Wikipedia:Rules for Fools. By your argument, there should be no April Fools' Day nominations. But there is consensus to have a little bit of more fun on April Fools' Day, even if it does not directly contribute to the encyclopedia. In fact, it is events like this that keep editors editing Wikipedia. So I do not see how "useful to the encyclopedia project" affects this MfD. The reason does not mention encyclopedic value whatsoever. Aasim (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.