Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LiteralKa/Gay Nigger Association of America

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 history merge with existing article also elimenating this userspace draft Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:LiteralKa/Gay Nigger Association of America

WP:STALEDRAFT. The article has been edited only once since it was undeleted 7 months ago, and that was in the first week of its undeletion. A new article on the topic, Gay Nigger Association of America, already exists, which apparently does not suffer from the flaws of the deleted version(s). Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep GNAA a hilarious bunch of chaps and for non admins like me it's great to have history like that available on the wiki. I wasn't aware of that before but now that I am, it's bookmarked :) All in all no reason to remove it, really. It's presumably not googlable so no harm is done, but there is much amusement for the taking! Egg Centric 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Block user crossed out. Killiondude (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked or not, the comment is still valid. The closing admin will take the block into account and weigh his opinions as such. LiteralKa (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do that again, and I will block you for disruptive editing. We (read: admins) frequently mark and discount indef blocked user from discussions. Killiondude (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I am now no longer blocked I have reinstated my vote. Egg Centric 15:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...And I have now removed it again, as it's not a very useful vote, having read below. Egg Centric 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping a page for its historic value is an established precedent on the encyclopedia. LiteralKa (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. It is not "presumably not googlable" and there certainly is harm as GNAA is a longstanding troll magnet. If kept, this staledraft will indeed attract countless trolls. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how will it "attract countless trolls"? Even the mainspace article has yet to attract any. I fail to see your logic here. LiteralKa (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are concerned with possible vandalism, you may lock the page and prevent further revisions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. Per TPH above. --John (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this rationale is listed on WP:PERNOM and WP:VAGUEWAVE, remember, MfD is not a vote. LiteralKa (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:STALEDRAFT is not listed on WP:PERNOM and WP:VAGUEWAVE, and is not a vote. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment When did I say that it was? I merely said that saying "as per above" and pointing to a policy without elaborating at all is useless, rendering it nothing more than an attempt at voting. LiteralKa (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment except that they both explicitly stated "per WP:STALEDRAFT", which is an invocation of a relevant guideline, not a vote. If you really cared about "votes", you would have commented about that ridiculous "GNAA a hilarious bunch of chaps... there is much amusement for the taking!" vote above. Now, stop trying to dismiss perfectly valid arguments. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. Per Ten Pound Hammer above. --Kleinzach 02:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this rationale is listed on WP:PERNOM and WP:VAGUEWAVE, remember, MfD is not a vote. LiteralKa (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:STALEDRAFT is not listed on WP:PERNOM and WP:VAGUEWAVE, and is not a vote. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment When did I say that it was? I merely said that saying "as per above" and pointing to a policy without elaborating at all is useless, rendering it nothing more than an attempt at voting. LiteralKa (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment except that they both explicitly stated "per WP:STALEDRAFT", which is an invocation of a relevant guideline, not a vote. If you really cared about "votes", you would have commented about that ridiculous "GNAA a hilarious bunch of chaps... there is much amusement for the taking!" vote above. Now, stop trying to dismiss perfectly valid arguments. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge history valuable for the article history, if nothing else. The fact that a copy of the old article exists is immensely helpful for demonstrating the massive revisions that the article underwent since its deletion five years ago. We wouldn't even be having this discussion of the GNAA didn't have such a long history with Wikipedia. LiteralKa (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would be nice, also, if in the future, people would notify me when something in my userspace is put up for deletion. LiteralKa (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge history with Gay Nigger Association of America. Sam Hocevar (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terminate MfD, I don't see any indication that LiteralKa has asked for interference in his user space. If he wants something deleted, he would probably ask someone to do it. --Afed (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Things in one's userspace isn't really "off limits" for other users. See WP:Own and WP:User pages. Essentially, your !vote isn't in compliance with how Wikipedia operates (check out our policy and guideline pages which are descriptive of current practices) and admins are probably going to ignore it. Killiondude (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to WP:Own does not seem to include any rules regarding User space. WP:User pages, however, does contain policy on User space pages. In light of this I alter my response to this MfD to be Merge history. I don't agree with the policy regarding User space, but I will comply with it. I remain deeply disturbed by the use of bureaucratic measures to bring action against LiteralKa instead of merely asking him to make the desired changes. --Afed (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a history merge isn't possible (and I really don't understand why one wouldn't be, but I'm admittedly not an expert in history merges) then I would prefer the article be Kept for reference purposes when editing the new article. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge history with Gay Nigger Association of America nprice (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Merge history" is not a valid way to close this MFD. The pages do not have the same content and should not be merged. Doing so will break the history. Prodego talk 14:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment one is a derivative of the other. Seems good to me. LiteralKa (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prodego, you got any better ideas? There is no consensus to delete here. riffic (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would have to be copied verbatim from the other in order for a history merge to be an option. I've looked, and if that occurred, I missed it. Since "History merge" is not an option, it is in meaning closest to 'keep', so this should be closed as either no consensus (and kept) or keep. Unless new comments change that. Prodego talk 02:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge history or keep as a reference – Per LiteralKa. The former article's history provides useful insight into Wikipedia's experiences with the GNAA. This insight will prove useful for anyone researching Goatse Security (now a subject of note) or to anyone curious about why the GNAA is mentioned so much. Deleting the former article would be like deleting an obsolete guideline or essay that held a large sway over decisions in Wikipedia's early years. Archives of these things are useful, and the page history and diff's provide information that the Wayback Machine and WebCitation can't. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:STALEDRAFT. All pages on Wikipedia must have some justification that involves improving the encyclopedia, and there is no reason to believe that keeping this failed article or its the history would be beneficial. Wikipedia is not the place to celebrate troll behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 14 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:LiteralKa/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America&oldid=1078590319"