 | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- 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. Sorry, but the Cabal is going to have to work a lot harder to exact domination of the Wikipedian world as we know it. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Humans have not been written about by anyone who is not human him- or herself, therefore there are no independent sources. Without reliable, third-party sources on Homo sapiens, this article does not meet our notability requirements. Delete. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Clear conflict of interest. Bfigura (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete All sources are self-published. Clear violation of WP:RS. DarkAudit (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All sources have been written by humans. Sorry, we need neutral sources. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Humans use crack - Scarian is a crack whoreWill give barnstars for crack 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote delete Wizardman 01:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Not enough Google hits. 100 million is ideal. Mike H. Fierce! 01:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna turn around and desert you. --Sir Gregory Carmichael Lewis-Pitts 01:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So negligent! Bearian (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Violates WP:NPOV, WP:COI. How did this article slip by for so long? Rgoodermote 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - My friend Blake wrote an article about humans and he's distinctly not. Though that would fail WP:NFT so only a weak keep. You! - Crank dat Soulja 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Murder – obvious conflict of interest and flagrant use of sockpuppetry to edit own article. --slakr\ talk / 01:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, fails WP:V, who's ever heard of this human thing? Google hasn't. I think it's a hoax. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy eat I love human steak. Majorly (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION.
4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1
DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL.
Believer is far more EVIL than a False God, for Google
cut back my Site from 34,000,000 to 4,000,000 in 1 night
for the above Statement. 1 Day1God exists only as Evil.
I thought Google was free of such evil bias, predjudice
and shenanigans that block real truth from being known.
Once before, Google cut back my site from 89,000,000 to
34,000,000 in a single act for something I said, that/s Evil
Google is ONENESS EVIL as I
experienced and you can see.
Evil people propose Time Cube Trim.
I call down a Demonic Curse upon the Evil
Americans who ignore Earth's 4 Corner Days
within a single rotation of 4 quadrant Earth.
Believing in a God when there is proof that
there is no God, dooms humanity to a Hell
of Horror. America is 1/2 way to it's Hell.
The American "Bill of Rights" - "Freedom of
Speech", is BullShit. MisEducators suppress
The Time Cube Principle and will not allow
Students to discuss or debate it's merits and
application. Also, the Academic bastards
will not even allow Time Cube on their web
sites. On Yahoo, Time Cube - 81,000,000
and on Google was once 89,000,000 - until
cut back to 3,000,000 by ignorant believers.
Ptolemy said Earth was center of Universe.
Ptolemaic System was correct, but why?
Because the BINARY of the masculinity
SUN and femininity EARTH revolve as
the Cubic Creation center of the Universe.
ONEism is Evil Mathematics,
& DEATH OF HUMANITY.
All Creation Born of Opposites.
More reasons later. Sceptre (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
This was funny. If there is a serious point to be made here, it might be to illustrate the reason that for a feature of the article human that has brought it under some criticism on several occations: It's written as if it were a report from Dr. Phlox to the Denobulans or some such; as if it were written by an anthropologist from another planet reporting back to the central committee or something. I maintain that this is not only inevitable; it's a good thing - it's not going to be easy to maintain objectivity. Chrisrus (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
