Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Laser day


 * 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   delete. joe deckertalk to me 01:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

International Laser day

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Something made up on a discussion forum. No significant coverage in reliable outside sources. Google search nets 12 "unique" results. Contested prod. ... disco spinster   talk  22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As the prodder I agree, delete per WP:MADEUP. Further, it is implausible to think that an event made up today, June 26th, (as indicated in the article) has anything approaching the notability required to justify an article. Monty  845  22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete They sure are making it easier to delete articles on account of Wikipedia not being about things made up one day. I Jethrobot (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a candidate for speedy deletion. I would suggest placing a speedy delete tag on the page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Under what criteria?  It's probably just easier to delete this one early  because it doesn't stand a chance. I Jethrobot (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple CSD criteria that someone could try to shove this into, call it a hoax or a test page. I don't think it is a good fit for either, which is why I prodded it, but some people have looser interpretations of CSD policy. Monty  845  00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Don't think it's quite notable yet, since it was just made up yesterday. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a notable "day", and probably not a good idea. But in any case, no coverage in reliable sources.  I don't see that this fits under any speedy criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2011 (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.