Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human (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 speedy keep, happy April Fool's Day everyone. Non-admin closure to prevent time wasting.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 05:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Human

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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)


 * 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)
 * ...with human arbiters? Alexius08 (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said arbitrators were human? –MuZemike 05:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 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." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I like lots of humans.  C T J F 8 3  chat 05:30, 1 April 2010 (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.