User:Miminity/Weird stuffs/AFD

THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE NOR A ONE TO BE CREATED, THIS IS JUST A PURE HUMOR OF WEIRD ARTICLES THAT I ARCHIVED (Only the lead one or sections are archived here)

Santiago (meme character)

Excerpt

Context: This was brought to AFD due to being a Know Your Meme article than an Wikipedia article. The article has full of WP:FANCRAFT and sources by bunch of unreliable sources such as deviant art, fan videos on YouTube and a picture of a YouTube comment with zero likes.

Excerpt

Santiago
Sonic The Hedgehog character
[INSERT ORIGINAL MEME HERE] The Original Meme
First appearance	Sonic Generations
Last appearance	Sonic Superstars
Created by	SNick_WT
Based on	Sonic The Hedgehog
Age	56
In-universe information
Alias	Classic Sonic
Species	Hedgehog
Occupation	Terrorist
Religion	Satanism
Home	Chile
Nationality	Scandinavian

Santiago is a meme character derived from the modern design of Classic Sonic from the Sonic the Hedgehog video game franchise. The meme critiques the depiction of Classic Sonic in titles like Sonic Generations and Sonic Forces, often portraying Santiago as an imposter or distorted version of Sonic.

References

Note: This is the citation #1 -> Splash Dash (2022-08-31). The Tale of Sonic's Imposter - Santiago. Retrieved 2024-12-26 – via YouTube.

AFD Thread

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santiago (meme character)

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 delete per WP:SNOW‎. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Santiago (meme character)

Santiago (meme character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. This seems very weak on sourcing and notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - fails the WP:GNG. Not a single source present is reliable, let alone significant coverage. Sources entirely to fansites, social media, YouTube, Wikipedia itself, and other sorts of unreliable WP:USERG type sources. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It it effectively community ran, the creator has also deleted their account, so it is hard to source much, one of the big sources I used was from a YouTube short "documentary", and the character made an official reference in a game, and a few of my citations were even from a writer of the Sonic comics...

I also used the main fan wiki etc. This is not worth deleting, it's a decent page, any "problems" can also be fixed with user contributions, which there will be more than a few. Charliephere (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's "hard to source much", then it doesn't meet the criteria for having a Wikipedia article. That said, this cannot be fixed simply by passerby users. I don't believe the subject has any GNG-satisfying coverage by third party reliable sources. Think websites like IGN or Eurogamer writing dedicated stories about Santiago. They simply don't exist, because it never happened. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Delete No reliable sourcing on a non-notable meme. This honestly should have just been speedied given everything regarding this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find any reliable, secondary sources even mentioning the subject. Woodroar (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete, completely non-notable. λ NegativeMP1 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable sources or significant coverage ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete per above. No reliable sources. Madeleine (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete No sources contributing to notability, and one of them is even a YouTube comment. That's a new one. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all of the sources given is unreliable and the whole article is bunch of WP:FANCRUFT. Quick search on google news and google books reveals no result. Also I just love how he sourced a comment with no likes Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No hope of attaining WP:GNG as there's no WP:RS - just WP:USERG here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. A really committed and serious effort to write an article about a humorously non-notable joke. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2024 (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.

9202

Excerpt

WP:TOOSOON? Nah It's WP:WAYWAYWAYWAYWAYWAYTOOSOON. A Wikipedia article for a year nearly 7 millenia from now is funny as hell

Excerpt

9202 in various calendars

Gregorian calendar	9202 IXCCII
Ab urbe condita	9955
Armenian calendar	8651 ԹՎ ՓՈԾԱ
Assyrian calendar	13952
Baháʼí calendar	7358–7359
Balinese saka calendar	9123–9124
Bengali calendar	8608–8609
Berber calendar	10152
British Regnal year	N/A
Buddhist calendar	9746
Burmese calendar	8564
Byzantine calendar	14710–14711
Chinese calendar	辛巳年 (Metal Snake) 11899 or 11692     — to — 壬午年 (Water Horse) 11900 or 11693
Coptic calendar	8918–8919
Discordian calendar	10368
Ethiopian calendar	9194–9195
Hebrew calendar	12962–12963
Hindu calendars
- Vikram Samvat	9258–9259
- Shaka Samvat	9123–9124
- Kali Yuga	12302–12303
Holocene calendar	19202
Igbo calendar	8202–8203
Iranian calendar	8580–8581
Islamic calendar	8843–8844
Japanese calendar	Reiwa 7184 (令和７１８４年)
Javanese calendar	9355–9356
Juche calendar	7291
Julian calendar	Gregorian minus 67 days
Korean calendar	11535
Minguo calendar	ROC 7291 民國7291年
Nanakshahi calendar	7734
Thai solar calendar	9745
Tibetan calendar	ལྕགས་མོ་སྦྲུལ་ལོ་ (female Iron-Snake) 9328 or 8947 or 8175     — to — ཆུ་ཕོ་རྟ་ལོ་ (male Water-Horse) 9329 or 8948 or 8176
Unix time	228219897600 – 228251433599

9202 (IXCCII) will be a common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar, the 9202nd year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 202nd year of the 10th millennium, the 2nd year of the 93rd century, and the 3rd year of the 9200s decade.

AFD Thread

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9202

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. ✗plicit 23:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

9202

9202 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined G3. I tagged this a hoax because there isn't any information on this topic online. WP:TOOSOON obviously applies as well. The title is also ambiguous, which prevents this from being a plausible redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Given that the entire contents of this article are generated by the standard templates used for year articles, I can definitely see why this is ineligible for G3 — in and of itself, nothing about those aforementioned contents could actually be said to be inaccurate or false in any way. But it is indeed far too soon — by over 7 millenia — for there to be sufficiently enough to say about this far-off future year to merit an article (and you'd need to peer into the crystal ball — which would be contrary to policy — to suggest otherwise). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and sent to WP:DAFT. WP:TOOSOON is a massive understatement here. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per above; also, it's not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2025 (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.

List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country

Except

The title is very oddly specific and has unclear inclusion criteria.

Excerpt

This is article List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country.

List by 2018

ExpressVPN

• Cyprus - 2nd
• Montenegro - 1st
• Russia - 1st

NordVPN

• Russia - 2nd

Surfshark

• Russia - 3rd

IPVanish

• Russia - 4th

AFD Thread

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country
• Articles for deletion/List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country (2nd nomination)

List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of significance, unreferenced and fails WP:NLIST Syn73 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Lists. Syn73 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't know if this can be speedied but it appears to be a combination of WP:G2 and WP:G7. If it can't, I think these are still good reasons to delete after AfD - it's indiscriminate information that would require considerable effort and WP:OR to assemble into a reliable list and nobody is likely to do that. Even if they did, it would be almost instantly out of date. JMWt (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Oddly specific title LMFAO. Clearly do not pass WP:NLIST Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Nearly 10 yr old list, with only three countries listed. Very likely speedy deletion material... It looks like an unfinished stub draft that got pushed into mainspace then forgotten about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and send to WP:DAFT. Incredibly specific. — E_F⁵ 18:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Previous AFD was opened by article creator and sole contributor and should have been considered a WP:G7 request. OZOO (t) (c) 18:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Out of date and unsourced list, and as the VPN industry exists on secrecy and is a consolidated space (several services are owned by a group of companies), it's doubtful we can even get true and reliable statistics about this in the first place. Also generally these 'market share' articles usually contribute nothing to the reader and are WP:PROMO. Nathannah • 📮 22:58, 9 April 2025 (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.

The dumbness of the EU cookie consent law

Excerpt

An article rant about EU cookie consent banners.

Excerpt

EU cookie consent banners are pop-ups or notifications on websites asking whether you will accept browser cookies. Privacy laws in the EU (the ePrivacy Directive of 2002) require websites to get explicit consent from users before storing cookies on their devices. Europeans collectively lose approximately 575 million hours each year clicking through cookie consent banners mandated by EU law.

Cookie consent banners are described as "annoying digital bouncers" that interrupt the browsing experience for virtually every website visitor in the EU. Despite their intended privacy benefits, they are widely regarded as a nuisance. Users are constantly bombarded with these banners on almost every website they visit, disrupting their browsing experience. This leads to "cookie fatigue," where users often click "Accept All" without understanding the implications, just to get rid of the pop-up.

EU cookie consent banners — the worst thing to happen to the web

2018 Reddit thread on r/web_design called cookie banners "the worst thing to happen to the web," particularly on mobile, where they obstruct content and make navigation cumbersome.

Cookie banners impact businesses by subtly eroding productivity and user satisfaction. Every banner that interrupts an online interaction is a lost moment, and over time, these lost seconds add up significantly. For employees navigating multiple sites daily, this can mean lost hours each month. For customers, it means a less satisfying experience and frustration with brands that could drive them elsewhere.

The EU are out of touch with reality

The implementation of the EU cookie consent law has been criticised as out of touch with how people actually use the internet. The repetitive, disruptive nature of cookie banners is seen as a poor user experience and has led to widespread annoyance. The EU is aware of these issues, but the EU is a slow, technologically-backwards behemoth, staffed by people who are out of touch with reality, so many years have passed without the EU addressing the problems its EU cookie consent law has caused. And nobody in the EU seems to care.

References

AFD Thread

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The dumbness of the EU cookie consent law (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 delete‎. WP:SNOW applies. ✗plicit 03:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The dumbness of the EU cookie consent law

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The dumbness of the EU cookie consent law
• Articles for deletion/The dumbness of the EU cookie consent law (2nd nomination)

The dumbness of the EU cookie consent law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• This looks like an example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, an op-ed/blog post about EU law. It looks like the EU cookie directive section on the HTTP cookie page covers this topic well enough. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. It is fundamentally not Wikipedia material and it looks like just the opinion of one editor. If it really represents a commonly held idea on criticizing the EU cookie consent law, its title would not have the word "dumbness". As far I have seen, I have not seen any criticism page which contains the word "dumbness", much less has it in its title. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Chock full of WP:OR, all sources are unreliable (Reddit as a source, really?), complete violation of WP:NPOV throughout, even in the title. Blow it up! jolielover♥talk 06:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  quick comment, the first nomination isn't formatted properly and was created about the same time. Should we merge this? jolielover♥talk 06:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think so. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as an unencyclopedic essay, POV-fork, etc. I know essays don’t get speedy deletes, but I would support… a really fast delete! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (WP:SNOW or WP:IAR) From the title of the article onwards it is clear this is an opinon piece and not encyclopaedic content. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  It was nominated for speedy deletion a few hours ago, and then it was contested by someone who thought that it was just the tone that was the problem, such that it could be improved. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Speedy was rejected because A7 did not apply - it is not about a website. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  As Dorsetonian said, A7 does not apply to this article. I removed the speedy tag for that reason alone, not because I thought the article had much potential. I considered redirecting it to the target of EU cookie directive, but I didn't think a title with "dumbness" would be a plausible search term. I tagged it with {{tone}} because that was the clearest issue I could identify, and planned to come back to it the next day to decide whether to tag it with PROD or nominate it here at AfD. Now that someone's beaten me to it, I have no objection to its deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't want to tag it for speedy deletion immediately after one CSD got rejected, and I don't actually know if there's a CSD criteria for editorializing. It isn't G1, G10 or A11, so AfD might be the right process? BuySomeApples (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per blatant WP:NPOV violation and common sense (low-effort opinion piece).
• Delete. Blatant op-ed with lousy sourcing. 2405:DA40:5017:7800:6C96:474B:278:A7AD (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Click-bait title, this isn't something wikipedia needs. The opinions mentioned could be a sentence in the main European cookie article, but none are from a RS regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - completely biased and non-encyclopaedic. Could be a WP:G11 ("promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a place for posting your rants. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:NOT / WP:NPOV Squawk7700 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: That even the title, much less the actual content, fails WP:NOTOPINION probably says all that needs to be said here. I'm not entirely sure if any speedy deletion criterion perfectly fits, but I don't expect this to need the full seven days either. (And the only reason this is the "second nomination" was because the first nomination by Mcduarte2000 (talk · contribs); was incomplete and unformatted; I also note that just before that one, new user DeltaWeb (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this via the talk page. Both prior attempts more-or-less expressed the same concerns pretty much everyone else has.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete concur that this is what we're NOT supposed to do... Just one person's opinion, fine for your instragram page but not here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and probably eligible for speedy, it is not neutral at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and sent it to WP:DAFT. This is a clear violation of WP:NOT. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Should have been retagged for speedy delete based on violations of WP:ATTACK. Yue🌙 01:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fundamentally fails NPOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NPOV. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:56, 22 April 2025 (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.