Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex 84

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. Not a reason for deletion. Should you wish to pursue this, please make a policy-based nomination. Star Mississippi 23:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rex 84

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I don't think this is real. It sounds like a hoax. Delete? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, History, Military, Politics, Iran, United States of America, and North America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Reason 1: it's not relevant what you "think", you need actual reasons and arguments as to why it is a hoax. Reason 2: you have started about 30 AFDs today, and we don't necessarily have the capacity to discuss so many. Reasons 1 and 2 are tied together, because you leave a much larger burden on the community when you don't write a real nomination. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The sources in the article clearly establish that this is not a made up topic. WP:BEFORE fail. Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2025 (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.