The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Delete. Most of the "keep" comments state this is an important part of our history or culture, but from the recent AFD on GNAA and its strong endorsement on DRV it should be clear that it's not in fact an important part of history anywhere. It should be clear we will not have future use for it; its usefulness for research on the past of Wikipedia is doubtful at best. The low number of links to it attest that it's not really one of our most-well-known pools, or deletion debates. Also, we have quite a bit of precedent in getting rid of excessive pools ( here, here and here) because frankly they're pretty much all the same. Some comments were based on the DRV not being closed yet, but it has been closed since; one comment mentioned this is part of BJAODN, but it isn't linked from there either. Therefore I make this judgment call to delete the old pool. ( Radiant) 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:10 GNAA AfD nominations pool

The Gay Nigger Association of America article has been deleted. It's now time to delete this pool relating to it. The article was deleted after 18 nominations. Voortle 21:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, important part of Wikipedia history and moreover, the GNAA article DRV still isn't over. — Dark Shikari ^talk/ _contribs 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• It's over. Deal with it and move on. -- Calton | Talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• What do you mean by "deal with it"? I endorse the deletion of GNAA. Please stay civil. — Dark Shikari ^talk/ _contribs 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Differ to results of the DRV. Endorse deletion = delete this too. -- W.marsh 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep this inactive project page for historical reasons. Keeping this page is unrelated to keeping or deleting the article page. — Doug Bell  ^talk 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep This page is already inactive and marked as such. I'm all for deletion of silly pools while they are active but to delete ones that have already become inactive seems an unnecessary purging of the archives. I see no reason why we must take this further and delete it. To quote someone from the last attmpted mfd of this page We don't regularly delete inactive content on Wikipedia unless there's a very good reason for it. In this case, no such reasoning has been provided. It's important to keep a historical archive of everything that has occurred rather than simply deleting everything as soon as it gets out of date  YDAM  TALK 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, for historical significance, this pool was a very well known one, and this is one of the most well known AFDs of all time. So this should stay just for history. There's no harm to this old poll. Ter e nc e Ong 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, it is part of our BJAODN culture, and should remain this way. - Mailer Diablo 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, there's no advantage to deleting this page and no policy supporting it. -- tjstrf talk 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all of the silliness related to this organization. WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. I really have a problem with anything klike this that encourages the kind of silliness that went on for so long with this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a joke book. -- BigDT 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:DENY and all that. If they want a trophy case, let 'em maintain it on their own servers. -- Calton | Talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Have you actually taken a look at this page? It's not trolling, the contributors are members in good standing many of whom you will probably recognize the names of. It doesn't glorify vandalism, seeing as the GNAA page wasn't vandalism. How does this possibly fall under WP:DENY? -- tjstrf talk 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• It's not trolling... It's also not a dessert topping or floor wax: what all three have in common they're things I never claimed it to be. -- Calton | Talk 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Then if it's not trolling, please explain how its deletion is at all relevant to WP:DENY? The GNAA article was not vandalism, it was just ultimately determined to be non-notable/whatever. So being attached to that article does not make it a WP:DENY candidate. -- tjstrf talk 05:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• For your convenience, let me highlight the actual term I actually used -- trophy case. Are there any other things you wish to claim I've done? Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, perhaps? -- Calton | Talk 08:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. There's no point in deleting history. WP:DENY should not be used to delete every GNAA page. Will the Afd discussions be deleted next? --- RockMFR 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is a part of project's history — should we delete the GNAA's AfD's and DRV as well? I don't think WP:DENY applies. Duja ► 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - orphaned pages, unusable, non-notable, unverifiable, unencyclopedic, WP:DENY, need more reasons? ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{( Talk to Me) ( Support Neutrality)} 20:40, 7 December 2006 (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.