Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007

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 debate was keep (non-admin closure). Closing early per WP:SNOW. VG ☎ 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a prior deletion discussion, see AfD

Expired policy (?!) that is neither humorous nor serves any purpose anymore, other than to prove WP:CCC or WP:LAME. VG ☎ 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like an attack page to me, and that it looks like a page for editors to group up for an attack. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was an tongue-in-cheek expression of frustration with people doing something stupid. The list of signers includes a large number of highly productive contributors. Your readiness to apply the "attack page" label is rather insulting. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever. As the page is tagged: "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." The ridiculously repetitive deletion nomination of the GNAA article was the long-term event of the time. Next you'll want to delete the pages about Mr. Treason. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the historical tag. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A culturally important page, as shown by this Signpost article. There aren't many Signpost articles focussing on the deletion of just one page. Graham87 13:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is exactly the sort of historical page that we have a policy of keeping historical pages for, and it's marked as such. Deleting it would be a net loss. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to a less inflammatory name. The record need to be preserved, but, seriously, when I saw that name, I expected a humor tag. This needs a bit more civility. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. I agree with UsaSatsui. It should be more civil, as someone might not take Wikipedia seriously if they take it out of context (remember, no humor tag), which might tarnish the reputation of Wikipedia Knippschild (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Essays that are in the Wikipedia project space should ideally represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors. Essay fits and the lessons of that page are still valid and provide teaching beyond GNAA. No need to tag historical at this point in time. In addition, per GNAA AfD nominations pool (2nd nomination) MfD2 "it's not in fact an important part of history anywhere." -- Suntag ☼ 06:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Or merge into Wikipedia:GNAA votes for deletion policy. Also see GNAA ASS. -- Suntag ☼ 06:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A good deal of history of Wikipedia has eroded over time. It makes it difficult for newcomers to understand the context and evolution of process the community has over the years; even I find it hard to trace the early history of deletion on Wikipedia. We lost the heritage of BJAODN, we lost records of WoW and WiC through deletion for understandable reasons that it might cause further harm to the encyclopedia. However, GNAA is already a chapter considered closed (the article already deleted) and I do not think keeping and leaving the article as it is for historical record would cause as much harm to justify erasure. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message. - 07:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Funny and historically interesting. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Historically useful essay. No reason to remove. Mailer summarizes it well. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; of historical interest to those wondering about the evolution of deletion norms on Wikipedia, as argued above. the skomorokh 13:45, 22 October 2008 (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.