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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗plicit 23:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
=[[:9202]]=
:{{la|1=9202}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|title=9202}})
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)
{{clear}}
: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.