Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 31

Gay Nigger Association of America – No consensus, closure endorsed by default. A majority of contributors to this discussion agree that the deletion nomination (the 22nd) was properly speedily closed because it did not offer a new (or substantial) argument for deletion. This means that there are no grounds on which the closure could be overturned. – Sandstein 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

More than six months have passed since the most recent deletion discussion of this article. The speedy keep close negates the possibility that consensus can change. If six months isn't long enough, then how long until the community can again discuss deletion of an explicitly racist self-referential article about a group of self-admitted trolls? Moreover, the assertion that no policy rationale was presented is incorrect: there was no refutation of the fact that the article does not improve the encyclopedia in any way and no refutation of the fact that the article harms the encyclopedia by bringing the project, editors, and Foundation officials into disrepute, risking funding and credibility. Therefore, the deletion rationale citing the WP:IAR policy was correct. Moreover, WP:DENY is an additional sufficient rationale which the extraordinarily speedy keep did not allow me to raise in reply to the assertion that the initial rationale was insufficient. That is the epitome of an out of process close. Selery (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The correct venue for this is AFD. You need to withdraw this and follow the listing instructions at WP:AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (22nd nomination) was closed just now as a speedy keep after only 25 minutes. Selery (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did. They presented no rationale for deletion and I speedy closed it. This DRV is in response to my close a half hour ago. Had the nominator approached me on my talk page, I would've pointed out we are in a fundring drive right now and this article has not been specifically brought up as hurting it by the foundation. Also, it brings Wikipedia more into disrepute to self-censor things we don't like. Nominator brought nothing new to the countless previous WP:AFD and WP:DRVs on the subject.--v/r - T P 16:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the rationale was clear and correct at AFD. I did not think it would be productive to discuss the close because you cited WP:CCC while preventing the possibility of even learning whether consensus has changed. In fact, you censored the deletion discussion because you did not like it. I have discussed this article with Foundation officials. What do you think they will say if they are asked about it during a wide audience appearance or media interview? Selery (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has not been censored. It has been discussed.--v/r - T P 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My questions stand: (1) How long until the community is allowed to discuss deletion of the article again? (2) What do you think Foundation officials will say about the article if asked in a public forum? Selery (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) When a new point is brought up that hasn't been discussed before, (2) They already have and their answer was it better be sourced.--v/r - T P 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you limit discussion to only new points, then that means you prevent consensus from ever changing, even though you cited the policy to the contrary. Do you have any objections to my using your name and affiliations in a letter-writing campaign to news, professional, and academic organizations concerning this matter? Selery (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to quote me in context, then feel free. Be sure you've read the disclaimer on my user page as well.--v/r - T P 19:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to know what context you feel is sufficient. If you prepare a statement in a day's time explaining why you believe you have not disgraced yourself, the project, and the uniform of the United States Air Force then I will include it with my correspondence. I think it is disgusting that you willingly seek to preclude the very policy you cited when closing the AFD, and I will make a point of explaining why in as wide and specific fora as I believe will be most effective in helping you to see the error of your ways. Selery (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have not been 22 bona fide deletion nominations. Many of the deletion nominations were created by GNAA trolls and subsequently closed per WP:DENY with some having been deleted. I selected the next number in sequence not shown on {{GNAA History}}. Selery (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Keep Close WP:DENY does not pertain to articles, a subject which i've brought up on the talk page of that before. In trying to use DENY on an article, you are directly and deliberately violating WP:NPOV. TO be neutral in terms of our coverage, we do not apply things like DENY to anything but editors and only very, very rarely do we apply WP:IAR. In fact, so rarely that I don't remember a single discussion where it was invoked in terms of an article deletion and was upheld. Nothing in this nomination or in the AfD nomination announced anything policy based in terms of deletion. The article has clearly shown its notability through various sources and the community already held it to a far higher standard than we should have otherwise due to the nature of the subject. The subject itself eventually passed even those high standards, so I see absolutely no reason for it to be deleted and you present no coherent deletion-based rationale for doing so. Silver seren^C 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The nomination was based upon WP:IAR and, per WP:SAUCE, that cuts both ways so one should not complain about procedural niceties when not following them oneself. The topic seems to have been at AFD often enough and WP:DEL states "... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome...Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." Warden (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB yes I have just blocked Selery 48hrs for his last comment to TP. This is unrelated to his views on the deletion of this article - he is entitled to his opinions on that. I would have blocked him for that comment in any context, it is simply an outrageous personal attack. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should take no action for now but I would ask the closer to make a statement that a policy-citing nomination will be permitted a full discussion. Our policy has always been, to paraphrase Jimmy Wales, that people with a beef should be heard. In accordance with that, we simply must accept that, whether it exists or not, this article is going to be debated every six months or so. There's nothing disruptive about having that debate once again; it may be repetitive, but it is important to the way we do things. Chick Bowen 04:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Unless there is a change in policy to endorse the deletion of content because people find it offensive, following this process would cause the time of experienced contributors to continue to be wasted on rebutting arguments that have been and still are invalid. There is simply no point in a 'debate', which would at best involve someone copy and pasting the valid arguments from previous deletion discussions into the new discussion.

What's next, mediation after this fails? Where does the waste stop? Nevard (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (reopen the speedy close). That was an unacceptable speedy close. The nomination was not unreasonable. Wikipedia:Speedy keep is not for contestable use; this use smacks of admin domination over process. Let the discussion run its course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the outcome though it may have been dealt with better. The arguments presented at the AFD have well known consensus that we don't delete article for such reasons, as such the best you could do with them is apply the idea that consensus can change. I dislike bare consensus has changed arguments at DRV, where there is no supporting evidence to show it has changed, and I can see no reason why we should entertain the same at AFD. That said the history of this article is obviously long and the latest discussion being an overturn at DRV could perhaps at some point be reevaluated by the community, it'll just need some real arguments rather than indignation and hysteria (which of course does more to feed the trolls than it does to resolve the issue). --62.254.139.60 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Jeez, enough wit this shit already, it has been discussed so many times it is nauseating to see it come up again and again and again. The group exists, reliable sources discuss its existence, notability confirmed, the article is here for good. Deal with it. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - as it reeks of per administator domination over the deletion process. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SK #1, the nominator of the AfD (and this DRV) did not advance a policy based reasoning for deletion. WP:IAR in not applicable for deletion of an article (or people would do that for everything). Other than that, everything else in the nominator's argument had to do with emotional based reasoning, none of which is a deletion argument, so the AfD was correctly closed under Speedy Keep guidelines. Silver seren^C 01:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK#1 does not include the words "policy based". You are by implication paraphrasing falsely and you should not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it qualifies under SK#2, sub-part 2 and 5. "Offensive to blacks" is not only an absurd deletion rationale, it isn't even true. The use of "nigger" doesn't make what one is saying automatically offensive, just ask Dr. Dre or Ice Cube, or look at where the group's name came from. It was a dumb nomination all around, and rightly closed IMO as disruptive. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SK#2/2 - That seems an assumption of bad faith on the nominator. You may be right, but I don't see it. SK#2/5 - Arguably, the nominator should have read previous AfDs and hasn't, but I wouldn't criticise anyone for that. I gave up before getting very far. They are many and not well organised or well labelled. In either case, the closer didn't cite specific SK criteria, and "fails to present a rationale for deletion" is not a reasonable criticism to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a level of inane nonsense that you consider worthy of a speedy close? Is it simply necessary to open a deletion discussion with the reason 'I like fluffy bunnies and unicorns'? Must one provide a 'reason' at all? Nevard (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Offensive … does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, is a self-reference … it brings Foundation officials, editors, and projects into disrepute…" is not inane nonsense. "I like fluffy bunnies and unicorns" as a nomination fits WP:SK#1 "fails to advance an argument for deletion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. So 'Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT' is fine? Nevard (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT nominations should be answered, not summarily closed by an administrator who knows better than the relative newcomer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse since the nomination didn't give a reason to delete the article which is in any way based on any policy or guideline. A deletion discussion with a nomination based on some policy or guideline would be acceptable since the article hasn't been through AfD since 2006. While the DRV discussion which restored the article did advise against quickly sending it back to AfD that discussion took place nearly a year ago. Hut 8.5 16:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Thank you Tim for reverting the procedural close, which was done on the basis of the nominator making personal attacks.

I don’t know if this is going to proceed much further. It is an unusual DRV, essentially reviewing a Speedy Keep, with no actual deletion in question. I think this is important because for a (what I assume) good faith nomination by someone not involved in the previous many discussions to be quickly speedy kept is a chilling thing to happen. If admins are allowed to arbitrarily speedy keep AfDs, then this elevates the administrator to ruler of the process. In the AfD, I don’t think any Speedy Keep criteria were met, and so the discussion should have been allowed to take its course.

The likelihood of any outcome of the AfD if continued is entirely beside the point.

A number of the other participants here have introduced arguments well suited to an AfD, and not well directed to DRV. If this means anything, it may be that there is a need for an AfD, even if the result is a SNOW keep. Note that the last AfD was very long ago.

The question is: Was the close (‘’’Speedy Keep’’’) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (22nd nomination) proper? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote from a meme that the GNAA is fond of, "not a single fuck was given this day". We don't need to go through an AfD when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This is one of the infrequent time where WP:IAR is fitting, so please, let's just let it like. The article exists, is supported by acceptable sources, no doubt they are tickled pink that the phrase "Gay Nigger" now appears in the wikipedia. To attempt to be spiteful in return and delete the article (this essentially the gist of Selery's argument) is just lame. Let it go, move on. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence From WP:IAR, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your statement supposed to mean? Yes, it's a policy and one that the community has stated time and again should only be used in the most dire of circumstances, because otherwise it will be abused, like it is here. Trying to use WP:IAR to delete article content flies in the face of the purpose of the encyclopedia and is besmirching the entire point of the IAR policy. If you cannot successfully convince the community using policy other than IAR, then that means that there is no support for the use of IAR in that circumstance the first place, which is why it is so rarely used. Using it in a situation such as this means that there is no real reason based in any other policy for why some action should be undertaken. This right away shows that the action in question is against community standards. Silver seren^C 10:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At DRV our main role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and I think that's what we should do here. I know there are users who think it's reasonable for administrators to control what we can and can't have a deletion discussion about, but I'm afraid FairProcess trumps that. I think that in the absence of any overriding or pressing reason to close the AfD, the least harmful course is to let the discussion continue for its normal length before assessing the result in the normal way and reaching the conclusion. The fact that it's an obvious "no consensus" doesn't make it fair and reasonable to terminate discussion prematurely. Overturn and list at AfD, and we should stipulate a full seven day discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per SmokeyJoe. This isn't a speedy keep case and IAR is rarely a good thing to invoke when cutting off a discussion. The discussion just goes someplace else. Hobit (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Send it to AfD: Speedy keep improperly envoked and enough time has passed to justify another discussion Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The evidence from the AfD is that Elen of the Roads stated, "nomination does not cite any wikipedia policy". It is true that the nomination does not state, "WP:IAR is a policy." The evidence is that the closing states, "fails to present a rationale for deletion." It is true that the nomination does not state, "This is the rationale for deletion:". Rather than debate about whether or not the nomination should have been explicit in these statements, a valid response is to correct these perceived deficiencies in the nomination and resubmit at the nominator's convenience, as a Speedy keep is not by itself a bar to an immediate renomination. Unscintillating (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse first off, just because you think that the page is offensive does not mean it should be deleted that would be censorship. Two, just because you think that the quote article does nothing to improve the encyclopedia un quote doesn't mean that it should be deleted. That isn't a valid reason for deletion, and effectively amounts to I don't like it. We didn't give in to the mohammed cartoon issue, and so too will we not give in to this. 24.2.203.107 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Leaving aside the question of whether there might be a more policy based reason to delete the page, this nomination did not present one, and was properly closed for failing to state a ground. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.