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 keep. — ξ^xplicit 00:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALEDRAFT. Article recreation has been repeatedly denied at DRV and a redirect is in place which appears unlikely to change. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Storing controversial deleted articles indefinitely in userspace, in a format which makes them tantamount to WP:FAKEARTICLES, is not a good idea. Drafting articles in userspace is allowed, in situations where the user intends to reintroduce them into the mainspace once they are sufficiently improved. But in this case, there is a clear consensus (from the 18th AfD and the numerous DRVs) that there should be no article on this subject in the mainspace at all: with this in mind, keeping it in userspace under the guise of a "draft" is simply an attempt to circumvent consensus. Walton^One 17:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm baffled by the stale-userspace-draft argument. The article was being worked on as recently as October. Since when do we force people to update articles every day? The article is coming along, slowly but surely. I don't see where it has (in its current form) been denied at DRV. The article has come a long way since its last turn at DRV, and I think next time it will be ready. When you take away those arguments, all that is left is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not particularly fond of the GNAA either, but any article which has 38 references, mostly from reliable sources, shouldn't be deleted just because the nominator doesn't like its content. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this was edited substantially in Sept. 2010, and presumably the author intends to keep working on it until it does meet Wikipedia standards. If it's still sitting there without substantial work next September, then bring it back as a "Stale Draft". Buddy431 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I didn't intend to drastically edit this article until more credible sources had appeared referring to the GNAA. Now they have. The consensus was something to the effect of "keep it salted, but another appeal with better sourcing would not be an impossibility". Murdox (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Buddy431 and inlight of the comments by Murdox. Lovetinkle (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no justification for disrupting information stored in someone else's user space. If you don't like the content, stay out. --Afed (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are references in this article, so yes, it is likely to change and get restored eventually. Don't try to stifle someone's work on Wikipedia, just because you don't like the article's name. Dream Focus 10:40, 27 January 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.