Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:10 GNAA AfD nominations pool

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 Keep, but mark as inactive/historical. Xoloz 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really find this to be "fitting in" with the purpose of Wikipedia - it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a GAMBLING RING! This article is NOT what you'd find in an encyclopedia, and needs to go. It also is trying to amplify pure stupidity and controversy about the numerous AfD nominations of Gay Nigger Association of America. --NicAgent 14:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE this, [[Wikiped--NicAgent 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)ia:Millionth topic pool]], Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool, Wikipedia:Five-million pool, Wikipedia:Ten-million pool, Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool, Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool, Wikipedia:Last topic pool and propose the GNAA AfD nominations template (Template:GNAA-AfD) for deletion if this is deleted. Invitatious 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of those pools have recently survived deletion debates, and are not part of this debate. You appear to be trying to make a POINT by lumping them all together here. Many pools HAVE been recently deleted e.g. these. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. Though I dunno what's up with this "move" from "Articles" to "Miscellany". --NicAgent 14:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  AFD is for encylopedic articles in the Main namespace only. There are deletion debates for various types of pages, everything else (such as Wikipedia:PAGENAME) comes here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, including deleting everything mentioned by Invitatious. We need to be robust in rejecting GNAA related stuff, and joke pages. A bit of levity is fine, but we're an encyclopedia, and we can't allow ourselves to become a blogging or joke site. I don't think Invitatious' edit is in conflict with WP:POINT - that refers to disrputing wikipedia to make a point, whereas Invitatious is making his point civilly in the right place. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this particular pool. Nobody understands its use. Please keep the pools for the actual numbers (5M and 10M) so there can be more votes. The 1M and 2M pools were able to survive long enough to reach their closures, so should the 5M and 10M pools. Protect the proposed 20M and 50M pools from actually having any votes until we reach a late enough time to start voting in them. Georgia guy 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pool has already taken place and is obselete. It was an effective satire of the whole controversy surrounding the continual AFD's of the GNAA article. There are already plenty of other places in wikipedia that are joke related. Should we delete the entirety of WP:FUN Ydam 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Close nomination and move to MfD. This doesn't belong here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This IS MFD Ydam 16:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was incorrectly being cross-listed on AFD. I have removed the AFD link BigDT 16:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, sorry I didn't see that Ydam 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it time to have a meta pool? Wikipedia:10 Wikipedia:10 GNAA AfD nominations pool nominations pool? --Cyde↔Weys 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose above question. This is only the first time. Please wait until it gets nominated 3 times with no consensuses to delete on any nomination. Georgia guy 17:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus? What are you talking about? It doesn't look good for this article being kept, as you can see above. --NicAgent 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I mean, this is the first nomination and if it survives 3 nominations with no consensus, that would be the right time for a pool of the kind Cyde wants. Georgia guy 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well so far its 3-1 for deletion - I think that's a consensus, wouldn't ya say? --NicAgent 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Cyde hadn't aksed the question, I wouldn't have brought this subject up! Georgia guy 20:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There really is no benefit this article makes towards Wikipedia. All it is is a "contest" and Wikipedia is a reference guide NOT a place to mock controversal articles like Gay Nigger Association of America. In fact, I'm considering AfD'ing some of the numerous archived AfD nominations of GNAA. --NicAgent 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The pool survived through sixteen separate Afd nominations ... there's no reason to try to delete the pool now that it's over! If you wanted it deleted, you should've tried that before it's completed ... now, just let it stay as an uneditable archive (as happens to old pools). --Cyde↔Weys 22:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that it is over makes it ALL THE MORE WORTHWHILE to delete it. It is inactive, and with that said there's lesser need for it. And besides, Cyde, I hope you mean that the pool's survived 16 AfD's for GNAA NOT 16 AfD's (or should I say "MfDs" for this pool itself. --NicAgent 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Do you know how many failed policy proposals are preserved in Wikipedia: namespace? Hundreds. And do you know why? Because those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. --Cyde↔Weys 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no way to "learn" from this history - this article is NOT a failed policy proposal. Besides, it is designed for the sole purpose of starting something off of a frivolous matter: the numerous AfD nominations on GNAA. That's why an MfD tag is on this page. --NicAgent 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly don't believe there's anything to be learnt from the most AFD'd article in Wikipedia history? This pool is a strong part of that history. --Cyde↔Weys 02:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BJAODN takes up far more space, and this is just a small running joke that Wikipedia paid homage to. Other pools are kept, this one should be. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments, not really hurting anything. BryanG^(talk) 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not hurting anything and it could be (mildly) useful as a reference to the most AfD-nominated article in our history by far. Wikihistory, even old running jokes, should be preserved IMHO. Grandmasterka 05:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KEEP OMG, NOT ANOTHER GNAA-RELATED AfD! Stop, please! Think of the children!!!1 Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no stupider than the 500th language pool or the 1,000,000th article pool. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just as pointless as every other pool. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Rossami (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Delete per nom. --Coredesat 03:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep out of the main namespace, and historical in regards to our long ongoing GNAA noms. -M^ask 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't there a limit to how much can be on the Wikipedia database? Shouldn't economics be taken as to how much data space is used? If not, then why do we have a deletion policy? --NicAgent 00:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once a page is created, "deleting" it actually increases the size it takes up in the database. All of the old data is preserved ad infinitum as deleted edits, but now you also have to put an entry into the deletion log. So from a purely technical standpoint, if you're actually worried about saving space in the database, then you should never delete anything. --Cyde↔Weys 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of the deletion policy is to keep the project tidy and encyclopedic. Not to save space. which is not in itself at a premium. What is the actual size of the database at the moment anyway, isin't it something like 200 gig. whatever it is it isin't prohibitivly large Ydam 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep like BJAODN; Wikipedians need a little bread and circus to keep happy. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Glorification of silliness. BD2412 T 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as archive. --Zoz (t) 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CanadianCaesar. - Liberatore(T) 18:43, 15 June 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.