Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disassociated Press (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 14:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disassociated Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see anything elsewhere which would seem to meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was No consensus.

Previous discussions: 2006-06 (closed as No consensus)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary discussion of this idea was found. There is a Dissociated Press [1], which is a blog, but not connected to this concept. Deletion would prevent confusion and would be approrpriate for what is apparently a non-notable satire trope. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That even has its own article; see Dissociated press. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unsourced for years, couldn't find anything that could be used for sourcing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I see no value to this mini-joke page with zero sources. Reading the previous AfD, I cannot fathom why that closer evaluated as 'no consensus'. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  2006?! I scratch my head when I see these old discussions. It really was the wild west in wiki land back then. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the entire article is unsourced. Even the one Internet Archive link there is only leads to a generic "under construction" website, so this may as well be fabricated.Cortador (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ok, it's been used in the Warner Brothers cartoons, but it's clearly a spoof on the AP. Clever play on words, more suitable for a footnote in a cartoon biography somewhere. Delete for zero sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2023 (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.