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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gayness[edit]

This is a crap article with no encyclopedic content and nothing worth merging anywhere, but I can't make up my mind whether it would be best deleted, or redirected to gay. Amazingly, this borderline patent nonsense has been around for over two years.h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline nonsense essay of no value as a redirect. Starts out being about homosexuality, ends up being about gay meaning lame. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, tagged as such. THE KING 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the speedy tag, as I can't see how A7 applies to this article.--Fabrictramp 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geez Louise, how did this stay up for more than 2 years? Somebody really hated that administrative law class, apparently. Mandsford 23:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless essay. Hal peridol 23:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Original research, stream of consciousness pap. scope_creep 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote Speedy Delete as in my eyes this is clear vandalism, but I'm certain people would disagree, so just Strongest Possible Delete. JuJube 01:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced incoherent essay. Note: Except for a few days at different times, it has redirected to gay since creation in 2005. If it's redirected again then delete first to prevent reversal of the redirect. PrimeHunter 02:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. Now depending on the result of the AfD (delete, or redirect) the closing admin should either salt the page against creation or protect the redirect, as there has clearly been vandalism and bad-faith nonsense going on.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. For clarification: the rubbish appeared on August 21, 2005 and was turned into a redirect after a bit more than 3 hours. An anon reverted that edit on July 18, 2007 but it was redirected again on July 21. An anon reverted again on September 17, the redirect was restored the next day. An anon reverted yet again on October 30. Bizarrely the article, a piece of vandalism itself, was then vandalized and reverted by vandal-fighter back to the two paragraphs. It lasted until November 2 before being nominated for AFD. The real lost opportunity was on July 21, 2007, when it was tagged as speedy delete, but just reverted to a redirect. It would definitely have been worth actually deleting the article, and either restarting it with a redirect or just leaving it empty (no harm done since no inbound links, and has the benefit that new vandalism on the page would have to sneak through newpage scrutiny and not just recent changes).TheGrappler 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I strongly recommend the admin chooses to either salt the page or fully protect the redirect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I quite concur. Since redirecting to Gay seems a good choice, I'd lean towards protecting the redirect myself. Certainly I think it would be a very bad idea to repeat the mistake of July 21. TheGrappler 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above. -- Dougie WII 07:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dougie WII. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. and redirect to Gaydar. Bearian'sBooties 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly not an attempt at adding anything useful about gays or gayness. Borderline vandalism; only excuse: maybe that administrative law class was really very boring. --Smeira 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Preferrably not redirect at all. --AliceJMarkham 01:16, 6 November 2007 (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.