This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2006 November 28. The result of the deletion review was Deletion endorsed. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2007 February 6. The result of the deletion review was Deletion endorsed, overwhelming consensus. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2007 February 18. The result of the deletion review was Speedy closed. The basics of this have already been covered and endorsed by DRV, the rest is just trolling. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 July 27. The result of the deletion review was Clearly not enough. Create a draft first and run it by an uninvolved experienced contributor before bringing it back to DRV. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 September 2. The result of the deletion review was This isn't coming back. When there are decent sources we can look at this again. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 September 6. The result of the deletion review was No consensus to permit recreation. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 September 22. The result of the deletion review was Rapily repeated nominations tend to be disruptive. Nothing has significantly changed since the last nomination. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 February 18. The result of the deletion review was endorse status quo. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 February 27. The result of the deletion review was speedy close as status quo endorse. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 March 15. The result of the deletion review was speedy close as too soon. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 March 16. The result of the deletion review was overturn. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was Delete per dicussion below, this is non sourcable and keeping it could be seen as "feeding the trolls" - not that DENY applies to the mainspace but I think you know the concept... Tawker 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources. Note, please don't close this early as we really should get a consensus and consider deleting this article, as it is unsourced. Voortle 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply
So far: 14 Keep (discounting one with 8 edits), 38 delete (plus one redirect), 5 comment Please continue below SYSS Mouse 19:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I would also like to address the dismissal of the previous VFDs. You are allowing Wikipedia to spite itself by argueing that a topic's history on this site is not noteworthy. The number of discussions and VFDs this article has generated SHOULD count for the group's significance. By suggesting that GNAA's contention and considerable debate does not provide notoreity, you are arguing anything documented on Wikipedia that involves the history of Wikipedia or happenings on the site should also be deleted. How many hundreds of references and articles would that negate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.117.181 ( talk • contribs)
I, Cacophony, hereby create another arbitrary section break, for reasons which would exist were this section break not arbitrary. cacophony 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply
On a side note, I did the Scholar search, and came up with an article by Carlyle, who must have stepped into his time machine that morning. I'm going off line to think about this madness now. Resonanteye 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Instead of expressing my opinion in words, I will say Keep, with major reservations and much work to be done on the article. Resonanteye