Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel

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. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN#April Fools nominations getting out of hand. (NAC) 18:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Time travel[edit]

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

In the process of time travel, I have accidentally stumbled onto this article 50 years from now. It seems that the information was never updated properly, and the sources used for it have long since crumbled into dust, putting its accuracy into question. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:09, 1 April 2062 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; come back to the future with me TPH! We must stop this from happening! The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 02:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have peeked into the future and the article will be unsourced fancruft in precisely 15 years and 34 seconds. CycloneGU (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You must have looked at the wrong revision. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 02:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hammer, if you want to find those missing sources you have to make sure your flux capacitor is working right and that your DeLorean is going 88MPH. Do this and I guarantee that you will see some serious shit. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the interest of stopping a time paradox from happening. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It will be a dicdef in 100 years. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I went ahead 24 hours to check the outcome of this discussion, and it was in favor of keeping the article, so we might as well close it early and save some effort. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per *Dan T.*, to create a paradox.—msh210℠ 16:09, 1 April 2012 (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.