Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q42 (Wikidata item)


 * 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. Pretty clear consensus to remove the article. Whether this should happen through a merge or a deletion isn't so clear, but there are unrebutted concerns about the sourcing that make the delete argument the stronger one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Q42 (Wikidata item)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable enough topic for an encyclopedia article. The sources Q42 as examples, but they don't discuss Q42 as a topic in its own right. The compilation of examples in the wild thus constitutes original research. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

sign here ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are little more than passing mentions. Ionmars10 (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikidata Easter eggs including q42 are discussed in the 2019 Wired piece in the article's further reading, and again in Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet, Wired, 2020. I think that plus the ubiquity of its use as a pedagogical tool make it notable.
 * Passing mentions are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just ridiculous and WP:CRUFTY. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 16:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wikidata. The sources are either passing mentions or uses of the item as an example. There is no substantial analysis of the topic, thus it fails WP:WEBCRIT. Probably deserves a mention on the Wikidata page, but a stand-alone article is silly. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Am not opposed to merging; thanks for suggesting the target ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Wikidata, per above. Sources provided merely mention the item, but are not about the item. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per the past two arguments, which seem sensible considering the skimpy sources available to be used. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can't support merging as, unfortunately, Wikidata is a very bad article (I count five independent sources cited, out of 41 citations—WP:REFSPAM?), and this item doesn't strike me as particularly significant to the project's history. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2020 (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.