Wikipedia:GNAA votes for deletion policy

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

The renomination of the article Gay Nigger Association of America for deletion causes unnecessary disruption every time it repeats. Those who want it gone argue that it is a waste of bits and glorifies a bunch of worthless vandals. Those who want it kept say it describes a noteworthy Internet organization. People who are sick of the whole thing are either ignoring it, or in many cases voting to keep just because they feel that the ideals of fair play have been violated.

Thus, the following policy has been proposed:

Should the article be renominated for deletion, the following actions should be taken:

Remove the listing from VfD
Untag the article
Inform the nominator of this policy

Should the editor in question persist in renominating the article for deletion, they may be blocked for 24 hours. If the editor continues to renominate the article for deletion, the block can be doubled for each time the article is renominated.

The policy has an inbuilt expiry of 00:00 UTC January 1, 2007. While many have proposed a permanent ban on renominating the article, few decisions on Wikipedia should ever be final and immutable. Existing "gentlemen's agreements" of having six months between nominations have proven insufficient. The chosen date is just under 18 months from the date of this proposal, and is easy to remember.

Supporting this policy does not constitute a statement that one believes the article should exist, or that the GNAA deserves commendation or whatever the hell it is that they want. It merely means you're sick of the amount of time being wasted on the whole thing and want a reprieve.

Supporting this policy also does not state that one thinks the article should be renominated for deletion in 2007.

Support

Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
khaosworks 05:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
∞Who ?¿? 05:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
—freak(talk) 11:18, May. 26, 2007 (UTC) 05:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this should work for not only GNAA, but for other articles that have shown up on VfD more than about 3 times. Further, it also keeps VfD voters from getting tied up in VfDs over articles that have already been voted on for deletion several times. --Idont Havaname 07:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DarthVader 13:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
malathion ^talk 16:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if WP:GNAA is removed. Sam Hocevar 17:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix2 18:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Still support. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CanadianCaesar 22:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Kiba 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

CaptainStinko 05:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't support "this article (or group of articles) shall not be nominated for deletion" as a policy for any article. DavidH 05:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Instruction creep. I do, however, support anyone who removes the nomination without foundation in any written policy. — David Remahl 07:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
m:instruction creep. We get the idea, we don't need a formal policy that only applies to a particular article. Radiant_>|< 08:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
You could have let it run its course, instead of adding this to VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it is essentially the same as WP:GNAA, I figured that if one of them is on VFD then the other should be as well. Why are they separate, anyway? It may have made sense to reword the former. R adiant _>|< 17:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I would oppose this ruling for any article, controversial or no. The only exception to this rule would be if an article has had a clear consensus in vfd to keep, something which is already written in WP policy and something that GNAA has not had, to my knowledge. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 13:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All this will happen anyway; we don't need it preserved in policy. We have enough policy pages as it is.--Scimitar ^parley 15:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spearhead 15:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need; just ignore the VfDs, or vote keep, if that's the end-result you're after. Incidentally, this poll is thin on meaning there being no dicussion, expiry time or threshold for acceptance. It was better left in humour. -Splash 20:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal does not establish how VfDs create disruption. The article probably still exists only because the VfD process has been disrputed and subverted by GNAA members each time. Martg76 22:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This trollcruft should have been toasted ages ago, they don't deserve any special exceptions. ComCat 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Are there other highly disputed articles that could be included in this policy. I realized this is specifically for GNAA, but feel that it should be a broader policy to pertain specifically to articles that have been listed on Vfd "foo" number of times. ∞Who?¿? 05:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the only one we faced problems with. Others complain about the "three month rule" for VFD, but I see it nowhere. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking we should make this one a test case, then implement a new policy based on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understandable. ∞Who?¿? 05:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have one going that is non-GNAA specific: Wikipedia:Three month VfD policy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]