Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-11/GNAA

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 Speedy keep. Snowball. Nominator gives no valid reason for deletion. Of course we do not delete signpost articles Bduke (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-11/GNAA

We shouldn't include this. It just encourages the article to be recreated. BallPark2 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It was a notable event at the time, and we should strive to keep archives of the Signpost around for those who might want to do research to jog their memory or to serve as precedent in future debates (what was the name of the article that got AfDed 20 times?) As for the page, the title has been protected against recreation, so it's a non-issue. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Truly absurd nomination. WP should never delete Signpost articles. The editors thereof are quite bright; if they judged something worthy of writing about, it was, and it is worth keeping forever. Xoloz (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The article is a protected title anyway [1] to prevent future creation, so the logic is faulty. --12 Noon ^2¢ 18:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If Wikipedia shouldn't mention GNAA in the main article space, then it shouldn't mention it here either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BallPark2 (talk • contribs)
• Keep-This really is one of the most absurd deletion nominations I can remember. This, for better or for worse, was a noteworthy happening in Wikipedia, and trying to revise history based on some off chance documenting it might inspire someone to make a new article is ridiculous.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong keep What you're doing here is censoring the news. It's news, people want to find out about it. We're not going to go around suppresing freedom of speech just because it's a trolling organisation. Besides, there were articles when both BJAODN and Esperanza were deleted. Just how will it encourage the article to be recreated? And why shouldn'd we have a newspaper article about it just because we no longer have the article?--Phoenix-wiki 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Obviously. Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, because if we delete it, next week we'll be reading news about GNAA Signpost article getting deleted, relating the entire history of the case, and that'd raise a giant big ruckus, now wouldn't it. Journalists are funny that way. Ahem. To a certain extent, Wikipedia's rules have to be bended a little bit in case of the Signpost, which requires journalistic standards; we should force content off only if it violates some very hard and more or less non-negotiable rules (such as violating copyright policies, privacy policies, etc). WP:DENY isn't policy and as such it'd be a very stupid reason, in the very worst case, to force the Signpost to find a new host. The bottom line is this: It's a news article. Newspapers generally don't kill people. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:45, 20 January 2008 (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.