Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNAA votes for deletion policy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: CLOSED by User:Kim Bruning on July 20, 2005. Firebug 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GNAA votes for deletion policy

Redundant with WP:ASS, only without the sense of humor. I'm sure that we don't need policy pages that deal with only one particular article. m:instruction creep, m:voting is evil, WP:NOT a bureaucracy, etc. Radiant_>|< 09:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't need to start creating seperate deletion policies for each article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete. If it's redundant it will be removed after it fails to reach quorum. Vfd isn't a place for trying to eliminate policy/guidline proposals you may disagree with. Silles Sellis 12:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as quorum on Wikipedia, nor are proposals ever removed unless put on VFD. The point is not that I disagree with this proposal (even if I do) but that it's inherently a bad idea to have an official policy to handle a single article. Not to mention the fact that it's a bad idea to put a proposal to a vote before even discussing it. Radiant_>|< 13:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    Poor assumption on my part, and I apologize. But I still do not understand why it would be axiomatically "a bad idea to have an official policy [or a guideline?] to handle a single article". Silles Sellis 13:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The proposed policy isn't nonsense and it is probably necessary to create a policy for this single article because its VfD history. DarthVader 14:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete bs Spearhead 15:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep How can you call it redundent to WP:ASS when this was created to be much better structured, especislly since you voted to BJAODN it? Let the policy go through its normal procedure, and keep your objections to the policy page. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We take ourselves a bit too seriously at times. The deletion of WP:ASS I can partially understand, as the name may be offensive to some, but the disturbance caused by disruptively nominating and renominating an article is even more offensive. Hall Monitor 15:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant with WP:ASS --Phroziac (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless a broader policy is passed. --malathion talk 16:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Policy makes sense. Kryptops 16:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am pretty disappointed ass kicking is no longer mentioned, but it is an acceptable compromise. Sam Hocevar 16:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely non-sense creating a policy to a specific article. Discussion on a specific article should be taken in its talk page. Nabla 17:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please if one is deletied then its not really redundant any more Yuckfoo 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as both are on VFD and i voted delete for the other one and this one seems slightly more reasonable. Phoenix2 18:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; policy related to one article in 650,000 is pointless, unfunny, instruction creep, bureaucracy and unnecessary. Everyone just ignore the damn article when it turns up on VfD. -Splash 20:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It is supposed to replace WP:ASS, but I would prefer to just have one general policy about articles nominated for VfD more than twice, so that it doesn't look like it's specifically just for this one. --Idont Havaname 21:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Considering this policy is still in its early stages, this VfD seems to be an attempt to abuse the democratic process. It would be far more sensible to simply vote "No" on the proposal page itself. --malathion talk 00:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - when are people going to stop VfDing policy proposals? -- Joolz 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This was created as the G rated version of WP:ASS. I personally think if people wish to object to this policy, then just object it, instead of VFD'ing it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.