Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Perennial requests

message: Some ideas... I'd suggest the number but it's not perennial yet, more of a flavour of the month. G N A A is also a good choice. Brian P might be in the running at some point... ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a bunch more.  Looking back through the deletion review archives for ones closed as redundant would be a way of completing.  I'd been thinking about creating this page, but wondered about it versus WP:BEANS and hadn't decided.  GRBerry 13:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it was introduced "Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive - it is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion." [Emphasis in original.]  I'd encourage tweaking the intro to something that made it clear that these are items we've seen before, and that results are unlikely to change absent a new article draft or a change in general standards.  If we linked the following it could be helpful in determining when future reviews are likely to succeed: 1) the last complete AFD on the subject, 2) prior complete DRVs on the subject, 3) evidence snippets in DRVs that did not get a complete review.  (Yes, the perrennials often have some things in group 3.)  GRBerry 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Two things that are likely to have articles once people stop reacting to the simply sight of the names, maybe? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubtful.  Likely to have articles once reliable sources are provided.  Corvus cornix 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the problem with pages like this - once we get around to dragging our RS guideline into the 21st century, what happens?  People dismissing the appeals, "oh, it's another perennial undeletion proposal" and moving on.  No thanks.  In the case of myg0t, we should have an article on it by now.  Same as The Game.  GNAA?  We won't because of our lack of modern sourcing guidelines, but once we get around to repairing that, itll be fine, too.  Then what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People can always create the article in their user space then point to it at a DRV appeal.  Corvus cornix 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's make them jump through more hoops. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, let's make them get it right.  Corvus cornix 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's look at The Game - we denied it because it lacks a good English source?  How much righter do they need to get?  GNAA's been added now - the minute we finally wake the hell up and allow blog sources, that one's back.  How dumb is this page, really? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Game issue wasn't English sourcing. Although some people brought that up in the AfDs and DRVs, that was a small minority. I've therefore removed that claim from the matter. And no, blogs are not reliable sources in general. Although a small fraction of them are reliable for some purposes and those blogs are usable, the vast majority are not. As such, random blogs are not valid sources for articles. I should hope that we don't "wake the hell up" because that would lead to us losing our already low level of credibility with the public and unlike most of our credibility issues, this would be justified. JoshuaZ 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they can be, and I'm confident that will be addressed sooner rather than later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

message: I believe that the GNAA section should be updated and rewritten in light of the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_6#Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_.28closed.29 and the draft at User:Murdox/GNAA. Specifically, the following section should rewritten or removed:
Eventually it was accepted that writing an accurate, neutral article on this topic was impossible, because everything was being referenced to blogs, forum posts, and other highly unreliable sources. The two most commonly cited legitimate sources are A) an article in The Scotsman, which was probably just summarizing the Wikipedia article and B) The CNN video, which may or may not have actually aired and does not mention GNAA. Consensus has deemed both of these unacceptable.
As seen in User:Murdox/GNAA, "blogs, forum posts, and other highly unreliable sources" aren't the primary sources for claims of GNAA's notability anymore, and there are now two than two "legitimate" sources.
I also believe that the decision from Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_6#Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_.28closed.29 should also be cited (bold text added for emphasis):
But the opposers seem correct in questioning the the notability claims of the supporters, which rely on sources that often mention GNAA in passing during coverage of other topics, or which don't mention it at all. The supporters seem to rely on coverage of Goatse Security as supporting notability of the GNAA, but parent organizations do not typically inherit notability from subsidiaries or affiliates.
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to take the initiative and update the section myself. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Since Gay Nigger Association of America has now been created as a redirect, is it time for that section on the main page to be axed? Tarc (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's a chance that the redirect will be nominated for WP:RfD, and there may be attempts to transform the redirect into an article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting rewrite of GNAA section 

message: I removed the GNAA from the page due to its restoration. Further deletion discussion will presumably take place at WP:AFD instead of WP:DRV. Judging from the history of this page, articles are removed from the page when they are restored (eg. The Game, Encyclopedia Dramatica). If you believe that I shouldn't have removed the GNAA section from this page, feel free to share your concerns, but please remember that this isn't the place to argue about whether or not the GNAA article should've been restored. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of GNAA 

message: What is the purpose of this page? Toadette (Let's talk together!) 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably to educate folks about DRVs that have been litigated to death already and are likely to fail. Perhaps also to provide a place to link to and assist with asking for a speedy close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ???