Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Closed - This isn't funny, this isn't original, it's just stupid, and don't tell me to lighten up, because I won't hear of it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Obviously, this page is broken beyond repair. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally serious, anti-April Fools' Day delete. Actually, why not? After Salvio giuliano's RFA, maybe it is time to delete RFA and start over. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 02:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WP:NOTNOW. 28bytes (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see April Fool's day nominations as prima facie evidence of being unfunny. </Kmweber> In all seriousness, Delete per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• YES Let me quote Jimbo, "RFA is a horrible and broken process". :D Bejinhan talks 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because you all love me and might never hear from me again. Keepscases (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.