- 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 'keep' comments are based upon the idea that this is a debate, but Kicking222 is correct in his statement that it is actually not a debate, but written by a single person. ( Radiant) 08:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections
This is a relic from the times Gay Nigger Association of America was on FAC (not one, but two times). Totally unnecessary now since the article has been deleted. Kimchi. sg 07:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Since it seems to be stuck in the most painful deletion review Ive ever seen the "deleted article" position may be premature... (not that I think it'll be recreated, we just may be in limbo FOREVER at this rate) Glen 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteLet's clean house. -- Spartaz 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep at least until the DRV is finished; otherwise we risk contradictory results. Assuming DRV results in the article staying deleted, no objection to deleting this page once that process has finished. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 17:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Delete now that DRV on the article discussed has endorsed closure. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 15:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)- Keep; we have lots of FAC pages, this is just another one, with the additional advantage of being (another) record of what's wrong with the article. Septentrionalis 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is not an FAC page. This wasn't a debate over whether or not GNAA should be a Featured Article; it was one user's complaints about the process. -- Kicking222 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Even without other GNAA-related pages getting killed, I would still favor deletion of this one. Why is it even in the WP space? It's not as if it's a subpage of WP:GNAA. Anyway, as I said above, it's just the complaints of a single user- there's no historical reason to keep this article. -- Kicking222 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't find it funny enough to justify its existance. - Mailer Diablo 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Spartaz, Kicking222, and Mailer Diablo. -- Electric Eye ( talk) 01:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, we don't delete debate archives, even peripheral ones. -- tjstrf talk 01:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep While we generally shouldn't delete debate archives my initial reaction was to delete because they would contain nothing but trolling. However, looking at both nominations it seems that serious discussion about the matter did occur. These therefore are reasonable discussion archives which should be kept. JoshuaZ 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - these are actually valid debate, and are at the very least of historical interest. Guettarda 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Regardless of what happens to the GNAA article, this page is an archived debate that could provide relevant background in future discussions on similar subjects. - Mgm| (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but probably ultimately move to WP:BJAODN. It definitely has its share of comedy value. Orderinchaos78 13:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Big ol' comment Like four people have listed above that they favor keeping the page because it's a debate archive. Does anyone see that this is in no way a debate? It was a page created and edited by one editor. This does not strike me as a "debate". I honestly don't know if some of the above editors even read the page. --
Kicking222 01:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to note that nothing links to the page. It's not as if people were discussing these objections with each other or actually used it in another FA attempt. I seriously hope whoever closes this debate actually looks at the ideas presented (and the article itself) instead of simply counting the keep votes. --
Kicking222 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Only one of them fits in that category. The other is a serious discussion. Or am I to understand that we are only nominating that one? It seemed from the nom that both were being nominated. JoshuaZ 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to note that nothing links to the page. It's not as if people were discussing these objections with each other or actually used it in another FA attempt. I seriously hope whoever closes this debate actually looks at the ideas presented (and the article itself) instead of simply counting the keep votes. --
Kicking222 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just one users complaints against the FAC not really a valid FAC page. Whisp e ring 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia:Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections per Kicking222. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 'keep' comments are based upon the idea that this is a debate, but Kicking222 is correct in his statement that it is actually not a debate, but written by a single person. ( Radiant) 08:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections
This is a relic from the times Gay Nigger Association of America was on FAC (not one, but two times). Totally unnecessary now since the article has been deleted. Kimchi. sg 07:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Since it seems to be stuck in the most painful deletion review Ive ever seen the "deleted article" position may be premature... (not that I think it'll be recreated, we just may be in limbo FOREVER at this rate) Glen 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteLet's clean house. -- Spartaz 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep at least until the DRV is finished; otherwise we risk contradictory results. Assuming DRV results in the article staying deleted, no objection to deleting this page once that process has finished. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 17:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Delete now that DRV on the article discussed has endorsed closure. Gavia immer ( u| t| c) 15:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)- Keep; we have lots of FAC pages, this is just another one, with the additional advantage of being (another) record of what's wrong with the article. Septentrionalis 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is not an FAC page. This wasn't a debate over whether or not GNAA should be a Featured Article; it was one user's complaints about the process. -- Kicking222 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Even without other GNAA-related pages getting killed, I would still favor deletion of this one. Why is it even in the WP space? It's not as if it's a subpage of WP:GNAA. Anyway, as I said above, it's just the complaints of a single user- there's no historical reason to keep this article. -- Kicking222 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't find it funny enough to justify its existance. - Mailer Diablo 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Spartaz, Kicking222, and Mailer Diablo. -- Electric Eye ( talk) 01:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, we don't delete debate archives, even peripheral ones. -- tjstrf talk 01:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep While we generally shouldn't delete debate archives my initial reaction was to delete because they would contain nothing but trolling. However, looking at both nominations it seems that serious discussion about the matter did occur. These therefore are reasonable discussion archives which should be kept. JoshuaZ 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - these are actually valid debate, and are at the very least of historical interest. Guettarda 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Regardless of what happens to the GNAA article, this page is an archived debate that could provide relevant background in future discussions on similar subjects. - Mgm| (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but probably ultimately move to WP:BJAODN. It definitely has its share of comedy value. Orderinchaos78 13:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Big ol' comment Like four people have listed above that they favor keeping the page because it's a debate archive. Does anyone see that this is in no way a debate? It was a page created and edited by one editor. This does not strike me as a "debate". I honestly don't know if some of the above editors even read the page. --
Kicking222 01:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to note that nothing links to the page. It's not as if people were discussing these objections with each other or actually used it in another FA attempt. I seriously hope whoever closes this debate actually looks at the ideas presented (and the article itself) instead of simply counting the keep votes. --
Kicking222 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Only one of them fits in that category. The other is a serious discussion. Or am I to understand that we are only nominating that one? It seemed from the nom that both were being nominated. JoshuaZ 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to note that nothing links to the page. It's not as if people were discussing these objections with each other or actually used it in another FA attempt. I seriously hope whoever closes this debate actually looks at the ideas presented (and the article itself) instead of simply counting the keep votes. --
Kicking222 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just one users complaints against the FAC not really a valid FAC page. Whisp e ring 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia:Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections per Kicking222. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.