Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 1, 2006 (Complete List)


 * 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 of the debate was keep   Proto    ||    type    14:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

April 1, 2006 (Complete List)
This article contains the non-notable pranks that don't quite make it into April 1, 2006. But since these pranks are non-notable and the April 1, 2006 article contains a message stating all non-notable pranks will be deleted, the pranks here should not belong in any article. joturner 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep What, by definition, is notable? This, in itself, could be a debate argued for every article on Wikipedia.  If we look at the supposedly notable website pranks listed in April 1, 2006, a great ratio of them are rather techy/geeky web sites that probably tend to be visited frequently by the same folks who visit Wikipedia.  (Certainly, WE'RE not the end-all-determiners-of-importance in the universe, as much as we would like to be!)  The web is transient by nature, more so with these one-day internet pranks that we're trying to preserve for all posterity.  If we choose to note any of these brief incidents, we should list them all.  I advocate that we have a sampling of the most prominent pranks at April 1, 2006 and retain the rest at April 1, 2006 (Complete List). Daniel 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia isn't exactly hard-up for hard-drive space. The article is not hurting anyone and I've directed at least two dozen people there because they've specifically said to me, "Gee, I wish there was a place where I could see a list of all the April Fools jokes pulled today." In other words, the article is useful, harmless and it's hardly taking up space desperately needed for another article on obscure anime. Keep the article. —This unsigned comment was added by 200.77.30.205 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep and Clean up The thing is, I haven't (nor has anyone else) scoured this list to check to see if any of the items in here are notable. I moved all the items from April 1, 2006 here and then copied a few of the notable ones for Internet back over.  I agree that after the process of determining notable pranks for April Fool's Day 2006, this page could be deleted if people feel it should be, but for now, I think it is important to keep. Zebov 04:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, but renominate in a couple days. Just... have to... survive... three more... hours... Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Move Content to April 1, 2006, and Delete.  The definition of non notable seems to be determined by a few people, and I'd still like to see these jokes regardless of the gestapo polices opinions. 68.1.59.30 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think a particular entry is noteworthy that others don't agree with, discuss it on the April 1, 2006 discussion page. The problem is, when there are thousands of entries, it's hard for people to find the more noteworthy ones. Zebov 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that any of the ones left are noteworthy, (though Im sure a few are) but that's not the point. I don't see the harm in keeping them on a seperate page forever, even if a million people didn't see something, a few may have and want a record kept of it.  The Move Content isnt saying that a blogs joke should go between gamefaqs and slashdot, or even anywhere near it, but I don't think the blogs joke should disappear because not everyone in the world saw it or cared.  There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that might not be viewed by more than 10 people ever.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. 68.1.59.30 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Zebov 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, This list is a handy complilation of all april fools jokes, useful information which should be accessible. elyk 05:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the page certainly details the diversity of jokes at minimal cost. -- Taral 05:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, I like going through all the obscure Web sites that took the time to modify their themes for April Fool's Day. Just because someone else doesn't feel the site is noteworthy doesn't mean that I won't want to see it. Besides, what better place to document all of the sites that changed? Trunkmonkey 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Definite Keep, Does having it here hurt anything? I'm positive that at least for the next week, this article is going to be getting thousands of people, wanting to check out various jokes. I know I will. It will also serve as a handy guide of the events that transpired yesterday to future generations.--Captain Cornflake 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - good compilation of April Fool jokes on the internet which is easily accessible. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC). However, after looking at the article again.  It looked more of a web directory, which Wikipedia is definitely not so my vote is going to change to Move the notable stuff to April 1, 2006 then delete  --Arnzy (Talk) 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Definite Keep, I personally don't see peoples problems with keeping this page. I mean, it gives somebody something to do just looking through all the jokes for the day.  Afterall Wikipedia probably has an immense ammount of storage space and can afford to keep this page.--Linkman2004 05:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Definite Keep, This is a great article that records some humorous events in Internet history. I'd rather have a complete list than a list that selects only a few "notable" pranks. —This unsigned comment was added by 72.155.181.85 (talk • contribs).
 * Strong Keep This stuff is very interesting. -Unknownwarrior33 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; Wikipedia is not a web directory. Kirill Lok s h in 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Since the consensus (much to my surprise) seems to be that all of these events are in fact worth keeping (does that equal "notable"?), perhaps a Merge with April 1, 2006 is order? The problem I have here is that we have two different articles that are on the exact same thing; that sounds like a fork to me. joturn e r 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind that last comment; I just can't advocate keeping this article. joturn e r 05:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why are you averse to it existing as a fork? Or in a "less notable pranks" section on the main article?  It's not making anyone click on the unimportant pranks, just listing their existence, for anyone that may be interested.  There are tons of articles that stretch out into infinity where only a few of the people that read them will ever delve into the wealth of knowledge they possess... I say if it fits, and any one person wants it on wikipedia, (which, I'm guessing each of these qualifies), and it doesn't violate any policies, it should stay.  (btw, whoever may eventually tally the votes.  I voted above, so ignore this) 68.1.59.30 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Content forking and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. joturn e r 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, the forking certainly applies here, however, I don't think the repository of links does. That section specifies the links as detracting from the article, for example on an actors page where the page has 3 lines and then 18 links to fan sites on the actor.  In this case the article is the collection of links.  Even if you removed all of the links, the mere fact that a site had a hoax should gain it an entry of some importance if someone is willing to write it.  The only difference between this page and the real page seems to be the popularity of the sites, and with the votes so far, I'd say a majority aren't happy with the current popularity cutoff.68.1.59.30 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the popularity part is the biggest issue, as I noted in my vote below no prior years specify the pranks as notable only, appparently any prank someone felt like listing was included. This year's list is much larger but this seems to be because this year has seen far more pranks than prior years.  One example on this whole notable/non-notable thing: On the main page the entry about Yahoo! saying they were buying all of Web 2.0 is listed.  On the complete list page it lists right under that same entry two Web 2.0 companies who went along with the prank and posted a fake news item on their websites that they were being bought by Yahoo!  Personally I've not seen that type of collaboration much before (actually never personally) so I think it's highly notable.  I could add it to the main page but the thing is: who decides what's notable and what's not? Maestro4k 06:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete here as well. No prior year's April's Fools Day page says the lists are only notable pranks, it seems odd to change that suddenly this year. Maestro4k 06:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent note! I just gave a look at some of the previous years entrys, and there are some incredibly low traffic site pranks on some of them.  I can't believe that those have stood there for years without a problem, and this years are going to make or break wikipedia.68.1.59.30 06:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous years didn't have NEARLY this many entries. The thing is, at what point do you NOT include a prank?  Should I include setting the clocks wrong in my house or a friend of mine posting a fake entry on his blog?  Where is the line on what is included in the article? Zebov 01:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I like April Fool's jokes, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a massive collection of mostly non-notable links. Someone should go through this and merge notable pranks to the April 1, 2006 article first, of course, but we shouldn't have a listing for every single website that pulled a prank this year. BryanG 07:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to April 1, 2006, insignificant or not. The famous sites could be boldfaced or something or listed before others. I don't know. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge or Keep. The current version of the main page seems to have some Internet pranks listed that seem less significant than some of the ones of this ancillary page, judging by the apparent prominence of some of the web pages mentioned.  I have no problem with a two-tier system of major pranks relating to well-known sites, companies, etc. (e.g. such-and-such being bought out by Yahoo!) with the rest relegated to the "complete list" page.  However, I would strongly object to the idea of removing the complete list entirely.  This is a very interesting document of the day's ephemera, many of which will no longer be viewable in the next day or two.  A written record of what was out there on April 1, 2006 should be of continuing interest to people who encountered or perpetrated some of the pranks, with renewed interest as people gear up for April 1, 2007.  Whether the listing is merged or retained on a separate page, further sorting of the long "uncategorized" section would be helpful, and probably not all that hard to accomplish. Karen 08:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just to follow up a bit on the discussion since I posted the above. I'll grant that what happened on a blog with 25 readers is less notable than, for example, Google Romance. I will further admit that I naively added a reference to the former before reading that one is not supposed to do that with one's one work. If a "complete" list (or as nearly complete as possible) is desirable, that one line belongs here anyway; if not, it should go.  However, such a marginal case is not emblematic of everything that's been removed from the "notable" list and relegated to this one. I see, for example, that the NPR story about the fake product the iBod has been removed from the main page.  If a five minute story on a national news program isn't notable, then nothing is.  In addition, I have no doubt that many of the Internet references that didn't make the cut nevertheless were significant and of continuing interest to specific online communities.  To suggest that this entire second entry is merely a link farm, based on the occasional reference to someone's blog, is a straw man argument. If it makes anyone feel any better, links can be removed to defeat any promotional purpose - but the list itself should be preserved as a historical document. Karen 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to userspace. After all, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. It's interesting enough, but I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for it. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Delete, and the blogosphere will never forgive you. Mike Abundo 9:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:. I already voted below, but I just wanted to add that Wikipedia can do redirection automatically to the April 1, 2006 page so how is this such an issue? Localhost 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete on the basis that everything worth mentioning should be in April 1, 2006 already, and if it isn't important enough for that article, then it isn't important enough for Wikipedia. -- Chuq 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This looks like nothing more than an excuse for people to promote their non-notable websites (very few, if any, non-website related hoaxes have been added to the article compared to the original). Anything notable should be in the original, anything non-notable doesn't belong at Wikipedia (except perhaps in userspace). &mdash;David Johnson [ T|C ] 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn nonsense. And check how many of the keep votes are maybe by the same person just in case... Marcus22 12:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete. Maestro's convinced me. EntChickie 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as April Fool's listcruft. Unmaintainable, unverifiable list, if it's claiming to be a definitive list of hoaxes.  Heck, it doesn't list how I fooled my brother into thinking he'd gotten a parking ticket. - Rynne 15:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. &mdash;81.178.110.230 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to log in before posting the above comment. &mdash;Spe88 15:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. It's really interesting to have this listed somewhere. Mark the Echidna 16:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Somehow I don't see slashdot, yahoo, blizzard, or some of the other sites there as anything resembling nn. Maybe some of the really non-notable stuff should be deleted, though. Shadowoftime 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Nothing wrong with the article. The Filmaker 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I find this to be a useful chronicle of all that went on for April Fool's Day, but as too long and cumbersome to be part of the main article. I'd keep as is. Ithizar 17:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with April 1, 2006 and Delete this one. There's no reason to have both a "notable" and "complete" listings for an event that recurs annually. Zarggg 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with April 1, 2006. How and who determines what is notable, especially when it's just jokes? If it were a bunch of personal blogs maybe I would go for delete, but I see plenty of sites on here that are large communities (tens of thousands of active users, if not more) in their subject matter. And some of them do not have wikipedia entries. Just because you haven't heard of them or aren't up to date on that part of the world, doesn't mean they don't reach a lot of people who get a kick out of it. At this point, I think you either have all the april fool's jokes on one page or don't have an april fool's page at all (and delete the previous years while you're at it). 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by 71.255.76.240 (talk • contribs).


 * Merge with April 1, 2006. There is certainly enough content to break each April Fools down by year, however, dividing it up further is not only confusing but unfair. I would agree some jokes are higher profile, such as Slashdot's pranks, but what's a "notable" joke or not is WAY to opinionated to be done in such a way. My solution would be to put the agreeably more notable ones at the top, possibly in bold or something. Giving them their own page however is ridiculous. As for deleting this content, that is NOT a viable option. This is a wonderfl resource for pranks on the internet and in a way is a historical record, and I think it holds value for many people, and anything with value even to a small amount of people should not be deleted. This article certainly harms nobody by it's it existence, and thus there is no defense for it's deletion, other than that it should be combined with April 1, 2006, and then deleted. Nmaster64 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with April 1, 2006. I agree, you can't really determine if a site is notable or not unless you are familiar with every site on the Internet. What is notable to thousands in that sites community may not be notable with the person making the distinction. Also, a site may become notable at some point. There are certainly more frivilous things on here that are considered important. Terrix 17:01, 2 April 2006 (EST)


 * Keep - Useful to know what happened this April Fools Day. --FlyingPenguins 22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * DELETE - Predominantly non-notable entries, wikipedia is not a historical time capsule, unencyclopedic, etc. ZacharyS 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Bevo 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with April 1, 2006. I think that many sites listed here are noteworthy and shouldn't be ignored. 郵便箱 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Per being unecyclopedic and Wikipedia not being a webdirectory. —Ruud 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I went to the other April 1 page and this is just easier to read, and provides a much better organized list than the other page does.  If anything else merge the other page into this one, not this one into the other page . —This unsigned comment was added by 67.110.194.25 (talk • contribs).
 * The other page, April 1, 2006 was much more organized until someone decide to remove all organization. I believe there has been an attemp to reorganize the other page now, but the "notability" of the links on the "noteworthy" page is quite questionable now.  Zebov 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I reintroduced the categorisation for the original page, but it attracts nearly every edit - no-one is going to decide that their favourite site is non-notable and should go on the other page. The original mentions only including sites which have a Wikipedia entry already, which seems reasonable, and I tried to give them prominence, but there were just too many to try to ascertain the notability of all of them (and whether they should be moved to this other page, if it ends up being kept). -- Mithent 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable. Deltabeignet 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's a useful article to have. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.227.131.135 (talk • contribs).


 * Merge with April 1, 2006 and delete. One centrally and well organized page should suffice and is a lot easier to keep up-to-date then 2 separate pages that basically contain the same content (i.e. think thumbnail vs the full picture).  There is no reason to list some on one page and everything else on another and there certainly is no easy way to say what goes on the short list.  Localhost 05:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Ray Trygstad 05:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful content into April 1, 2006. If people are interested in this sort of thing, I see no reason to make them look it up in two separate articles. --Metropolitan90 07:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Change than Keep. Maybe remove all links, ect. so it is not a FFAL page, and just a record of what happened on April 1.--Abbott75 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It needs some cleaning, but I don't see why this isn't worthy of being preserved. It's a great read! --echelon talk 08:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong 09:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I'm with this guy's views on the matter: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/04/april_fools_day.php "Wikipedia has now split its list of April Fools pranks onto two pages, one containing just "notable" pranks and the other containing a complete list of pranks. A heated debate has also broken out between a group of Wikipedians who believe the complete list should be deleted because it contains "non-notable" pranks and another group of Wikipedians who believe the complete list should be maintained for posterity. ... What seems like a non-notable prank today may seem like a notable prank to those future generations. I think it's better to err on the side of caution." Bob, just Bob 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep 85.64.55.137 12:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is stupid. Firstly Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it should include things that are likely to be noteworthy not only now but in the future too. Nobody in 5 years (or even minutes) time will care what some non-notable website did on April fools day 2006 - they will care what major sites and other media did. Secondly, it would be very interesting to see how many of the people voting have some relation to an entry on the page - I would suggest that the only way for the closing admin to fairly determine the outcome of this discussion is to only count votes from unbiased Wikipedians (i.e. registered users with a reasonable number of contributions) who have not added entries to the page concerned. &mdash;David Johnson [ T|C ] 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounds to be me like YOU are the one who is trying to sway the vote. Nice try though. -- TomUnder This comment is actually from User:72.155.182.149, not User:TomUnder.
 * I'm trying to sway it insofar as I want to convince people that this nonsense should be deleted; that's what these discussions are for. Other than that I'm just not happy with people using Wikipedia as a promotion tool for their websites then coming here to subvert what should be a fair process. &mdash;David Johnson [ T|C ] 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that it's being used as a promotion tool for websites? And how would being linked off of one single page on Wikipedia (that's likely not going to get very much traffic after a few weeks until next year) actually benefit a site?  It'd take a lot more links from many pages to achieve any real benefits. Maestro4k 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's being used as a promotion tool - people are adding links to their own sites with for the sole purpose of increasing traffic to them. I've seen this enough times on Wikipedia to recognise when it's happening. Having your site linked from Wikipedia, even from a single page, can bring a lot more traffic and affect search engine rankings pretty dramatically. Go look for youself at voters' contributions and see how many have added to the article. &mdash;David Johnson [ T|C ] 00:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I can't predict the future, so I don't know what sites will be notable 5 years from now, how do you? I'm quite certain that people of almost any past era would be quite surprised at what we find interesting about their societies today, and we should keep that in mind.  I'm an amateur historian and when I've done research with primary and secondary sources in the past even the tiniest of details can be utterly fascinating.  I'm not sure offhand if April Fool's Day was celebrated 100 years ago but if it was I would LOVE to know what types of pranks were pulled, even the minor ones.  Just because it seems silly or trivial to you today does not mean it will be seen as silly, trivial or non-noteworthy in the future. Also, please remember Wikipedia's policy of Assuming Good Faith.  Suggesting that Keep voters are biased certainly isn't in the spirit of that policy. Maestro4k 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's a big difference between this and historial data: firstly there is not much data about April fools day 100 years ago - if there was, then you probably would only be interested in the notable stuff. Secondly, nobody will ever convince me that someone 100 years in the future will care what some website which was around for a few years without ever gaining popularity did on April fools day 2006. I'm also not saying that everyone voting keep is biased: I'm saying that a not-insignificant percentage of them are (and no doubt some delete voters too), as is clear from the number of unregistered and newly-created-with-no-contributions users voting. &mdash;David Johnson [ T|C ] 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You missed a very key point in what I said -- we can't see the future, how do you, I or anyone else know what will be considered notable in the future? We don't, and can't without a time machine.  To (futily) address your point about people in the future caring: you'd have likely been hard pressed to convince many people during Shakespeare's time that his plays were notable since they were designed as popular entertainment.  Nowadays we consider them absolute classics but it's quite likely that Shakespeare himself never thought of them as such, time changes perceptions on things, even jokes.  Finally I can't speak for any other newly registerd voters but I personally registered because I felt it was important to tie a name to my vote.  I have edited several times in the past (mainly to correct grammatical errors and such) but never felt it was worth registering just for that.  Even so I don't think any of the voters are voting because they're biased, astroturfing or trying to stuff the ballot (to mention all negatives suggested so far).  I think they're voting what they feel is correct even if they disagree with my stance. Maestro4k 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare's not a good example, since his plays attracted significant audiences during his time and he was well regarded, thus making him notable enough. In any case, Wikipedia's stance on issues like this are well known: if something isn't notable now, it doesn't get into Wikipedia. If and when something becomes notable, it can be included, but not before. To suggest that nobody here is making a biased vote is very naive: this happens a lot on Wikipedia and I have no doubt that plenty of the voters here have added links to sites they're involved with to the page (maybe some have even been directed here from those sites to vote for the page to be kept - this happens a lot too). &mdash;David Johnson [ T|C ] 00:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Juan Manuel at Buenos Aires —This unsigned comment was added by 201.216.208.194 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep This is just like cataloging anything on the Internet, which Wikipedia is already doing in many other areas. Deleting this article would require or create a sweeping precedent for "list of..." articles. DrKC9N 13:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Bob, I think you missed that Nick's comment was ironic. That's funny. Caligola 13:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As I noted on the Article's talk page, this page should be kept for the simple reason that it's just as encyclopediac as the other lists we have going. If we take down this list, then we'd have to take down the List of Cancelled Video Games and other such lists for the same reason, yet those lists have lasted since their creation. -- Xgamer4 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep or merge I echo the sentiments of many above. This is part of history.  10 years from now people will regret it if this information is lost. —This unsigned comment was added by 216.40.222.91 (talk • contribs).


 * Strong Keep Is a piece of history, keep!!! —This unsigned comment was added by 212.216.172.122 (talk • contribs).


 * Merge notable pranks and delete. It's a fork full of non-notable pranks. Wikipedia not a web directory, avoid forking and all that. -- Blorg 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, astroturfing notwithstanding. If ten years from now the fact that the author of fuckedgoogle.com pretended to be in love with a Google employee is lost, I doubt it will be regretted by many. --Sneftel 19:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge It's good to be able to find the whole list easily. Was handy enough to me to have the other page bookmarked anyway. —This unsigned comment was added by 81.104.144.93 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep as an encyclopedia we should aim for comprehensiveness.  Grue   21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It is a must! 203.109.240.139 09:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry I did not sign in Jc101 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep this one, delete the other and rename this one in its place. --Billpg 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is a list that can never, despite the article's name, be complete. The place to create such a list of non-notables is on your own blog, not a serious encyclopaedia. --BillC 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This is, at best, cruft, and at worse, a very silly shot at giving the "non-notable" AFJs their own article. By definition, things that are not notable should not be written up on Wikipedia. Robin Johnson 15:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for two reasons: (1) people can sort out the nn stuff in the editing process and, nearly as important (2) to unstarch the starched shirts. Bobak 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.