Bobby Witt Jr. ( talk| | 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

• Same answer as last time. Let Greinke decide.  MainPeanut  (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ MainPeanut The goal of deletion review is to address the deletion discussion itself, such as whether Bsoyka, the closer, should have closed the AfD after a mere two hours and nineteen minutes. It's not even one day, let alone seven! Not· Really· Soroka 00:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  In that case, definitely overturn.  MainPeanut  (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  To what? Not· Really· Soroka 00:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ MainPeanut Not· Really· Soroka 00:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  I mean overturn the ruling and reinstate the AfD.  MainPeanut  (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Reopen discussion per my comment above. Not· Really· Soroka 00:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

2020 ( talk| | 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

• Relist, and require that the actual location of snow be specified prior to any snow closures, since snow is rare in the mid-latitudes of either hemisphere in April. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Deletion review ( talk| | 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

Don't delete this page ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone deleted it! :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 07:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• What a terrible disaster for the encyclopaedia. Strong overturn, desysop absolutely everyone, and notify Jimbo at once!— S Marshall T/ C 09:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Undelete, and merge immediately with Leprosy, Riboflavin, and Sarah Palin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Undelete per WP:SNOW and WP:HASTE. CycloneGU ( talk) 16:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Undelete What kind of stupid admin deletes a page that clearly says "don't delete"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Otters want attention)} 17:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Red link ( talk| | 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 clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Create, Userfy, Redirect to Blue Links per WP:HELLO Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• That's Wordwang. I think. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• OMG! Blue Links is a Red Link! to differ, of course, from Wordwang. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Exactly. Red link should be blue, and blue link red, just to confuse n00bs who don't know what Wordwang is. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It _was_ Red, but now is blue. Sad, sad link. Hobit ( talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore, sources exist [1], [2] Hobit ( talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

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: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

• Overturn then speedy delete under G6 in half an hour. Let's face it, WP:APRIL's over in half an hour, and there's no point keeping this around after that. And of course, until then, it's hot. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Invulnerable? Ta-da! Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - No, no. I meant not 'til tomorrow. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• ( Oops..) Can I invokve Wikipedia:Ignore all time? Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Human (  | 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 ( talk • contribs) is a human and has made few or no other edits outside this topic for the past two minutes. reply

Wikipedia:Deletion review ( | 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

• Monkey. This nomination is not hot enough, I'm afraid. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:56, 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

• Endorse overturn of overturned endorse, for reasons which should be obvious. Guy ( Help!) 14:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Send in turn to MfD, CfD, RfD, ANI, ANB and WPA. One of them might think of something to do about it. consider again this time next year. DGG ( talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore no consensus per consensual nonsense. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Feature, fails WP:BOLLOCKS-- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

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