Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LiteralKa/GNAA

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  Moved to User:Michaeldsuarez/GNAA. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:LiteralKa/GNAA


TL;DR ranting about GNAA. User was indeffed for COI related to GNAA. No reason to keep this, particularly since there's an article on them now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to my userspace – As I've stated on Miscellany_for_deletion/Abd_user_pages, I hate to see these sort of pages disappear. Unlike Abd's essays, however, LiteralKa's essay still holds relevance. There may be a day where the information and insights provided within the essay may be useful, especially in a future deletion discussion. That day may not be so far away. Some users have suggested starting a new AfD. I would like to preserve the essay in my own userspace, if acceptable. I'll attempt to contact him for permission. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note – LiteralKa granted me custody of the page. I shall move it into my userspace if there aren't any objections. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Regardless of whether it gets moved, it is still a rant. Anyway the GNAA article exists. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an essay on the GNAA's notability. If there's another AfD, it'll find relevance again. Even if there aren't any future AfD's, users may be interested in learning how and why the article was restored after so much contention. This is one of the few comprehensive essays on the subject. In addition, can someone please explain why some participants believe that the essay is a rant? What's so rant-ish about the essay? I see an organized essay with quotes, links, bullets, and citations. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Move into Michaeldsuarez's space. This essay could probably use some updating to remain relevant to the current situation, but it should be kept as it provides an enlightening insight to the history between Wikipedia and the organization detailed in the essay. riffic (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2011 (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.