Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (14th nomination)


 * 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 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)

Gay Nigger Association of America
AfDs for this article:  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)

Arbitrary section break 1

 * Comment I also agree that this should not be closed early, as the page hasn't been discussed at all in five months and not truly discussed (i.e. not just closed early with a "speedy keep") in eight months. -- Kicking222 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing has happened in those eight months that would warrant re-discussion. The issue has not changed at all. cacophony 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero reliable sources. For an organization whose entire existence is online, you'd think it would get more than 1,000 total and 240 unique Google hits. -- Kicking222 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an odd way to search for GNAA. cacophony 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources, I don't think there are any, forums don't count, this is probably more of "Hey look, I can blame my trolling on something else" than a real organization. Nobody should say speedy keep, at all. -Amarkov blahedits 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment against speedy keep. Of the 18 nominations, I think like 7 were bad faith, and another 5 were just stupid, and those cast a bad light on the rest. -Amarkov blahedits 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources. Voortle 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. The main reason for having kept this in the past is the claim that they're well-known on Slashdot.  They aren't.  I've been reading Slashdot for quite some time and have never seen even so much as a passing mention of the GNAA.  Not one.  Ever.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The GNAA is hardly limited to slashdot. It is a well-known internet community, such as Albinoblacksheep or SomethingAwful. Jmax- 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only reliable source is this Scotsman article which on closer inspection is just a passing reference. All the rest are self-published websites or blog posts, so fails verifiability and notability. Demiurge 16:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the very nature of an internet phenomenon? Jmax- 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep For what it's worth, I have looked this organization up on Wikipedia previously. With 18 nominations, it's clear that this will keep happening over and over, because many people find the mere existence of the group patently offensive. However, the page appears to be quite well sourced; note that sources such as paper newspapers and major online outlets may be loath to even acknowledge the group's existence or put its name in print. The group is nevertheless notable. Chubbles 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If nobody will put their name into print, they are not well sourced. Notability does not provide a free pass on verifiability. -Amarkov blahedits 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * People will put their name into print, just not the most visible (and by extension, those considered most reliable) outlets. GNAA will not, ever, be found in Time or Newsweek, or any daily newspaper in any major or minor city. Some of the sources cited may be unacceptable if the subject were something well-covered in other sources, but in this context, many of the sources used in the article appear to follow WP:V's use of dubious sources criteria. I urge cleanup, not deletion. Chubbles 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not say that if there are no good sources, it's acceptable to build an article from bad sources. Everything has bad sources... -Amarkov blahedits 17:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am familiar with this group work Vintagekits 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...which is thankfully irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept. -Amarkov blahedits 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. Finally a nomination that is well thought-out.  Nacon kantari  17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: no reliable sources, as per WP:V. -- The Anome 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It will almost certainly be kept anyway, but the sources are bilge and yes the credibility or significance of sources does matter. If it doesn't it should. In addition Wikipedia is moving beyond the "computer-dork navel-gazing" era. The nn elements in Category:Slashdot have been deleted or merged to Slashdot. It's kind of time to shed the geek-trivia.--T. Anthony 17:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V, WP:RS. ergot 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, no reliable sourcing, which is too bad since the group is mildly amusing. Of course, the repeated nominations and discussions about the article are playing into exactly what the group wants... Otto4711 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not a fan of GNAA but this is the eighteenth AFD, every one has ended at keep. Some people just need to accept that this article exists and get on with your lives.  Whining until you get your way is not a valid way to create an encyclopedia. meshach 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They did not end at keep. The first few ended with no consensus due to terrible arguments, there were some bad faith ones, and then they started all getting speedy kept per the earlier ones. Articles do not get a free pass on WP:V just because they have a lot of bad AfD discussions. -Amarkov blahedits 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely no non-trivial sources.  The only source I see that comes close to "reliable" is the Mac Daily News article, which... doesn't mention GNAA.  Utterly non-notable outside of their own tiny circle.  bikeable (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This should have been fucking deleted years ago. As per above. - hahnch  e  n 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is the 18th time that this has come up, and it hasn't been deleted yet. Cman 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to take a look at the last several nominations, and to consider the verifiability of the articles. --Wafulz 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've looked through every reference in the article, and they are all either blogs, forum posts, or from the GNAA website. The vast majority of the previous keeps were "speedy keep per prior afd." I should also point out there was a quasi-pool about the GNAA's 10th nomination, which may have encouraged bad faith noms. The last eight AfDs seem like bad faith noms of the form "NN delete" or "encourages trolls". Article has no reliable sources and is not verifiable. --Wafulz 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep They are real and they do real things. They are also offensive in name, objectives and achievements but that doesn't remove their notable status. (aeropagitica) 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The nominator has brought up issues of verifiability, not notability. So far, no reliable independent sources have been shown. --Wafulz 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am real and I do things. I'm even published, sort of, that doesn't mean I deserve an article.Cedarville High School is also real, but doesn't really merit an article.--T. Anthony 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep based on precedent of 17 previously failed AfDs. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Have you read the entirety of this discussion? It even says in the nomination that we're trying to find some actual sources behind this as opposed to saying "speedy keep per the past".--Wafulz 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I read it. I don't believe that AfD is the appropriate forum to discuss this issue any longer. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. My previous comment on the article's talk page: I'm sure this has been said thousands of times, but I find it funny that this article has no reliable secondary sources at all. Blog posts and slashdot user pages normally wouldn't be considered reliable. --- RockMFR 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS  0L1   Talk   Contribs  21:40 26/11/2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Effectively a promo page for a troll organization without reliable, substantive, non-trivial sources as the article stands Bwithh 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ah, it's this time of year again? Good. As variously pointed out, this has substantially no reliable sources, and no case for any notability that I can understand. Sandstein 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete there are far less obnoxious things that are not allowed to have an article here. Danny Lilithborne 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to comply with WP:V, WP:RS and imo WP:N, and the article has been around more than long enough for us to fix it, so I seriously doubt we can. --E  ivind t@c 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it is mentioned here, and it's obviously verifiable that the organisation exists. It could perhaps use some pruning, but the site itself is much more popular than many on Wikipedia, with an Alexia ranking of 288,468. Salad Days 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * EXISTENCE being verifiable is irrelevant. Mere existence is not enough to build an article from. There has to be OTHER information which is verifiable, and there is not. And WP:INN to your "more popular" comment. Articles about forums with very high Alexa ratings have been deleted for this same reason, lack of verifiable information. -Amarkov blahedits 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Also, 288,468 is not particularly high anyway. The vast majority of websites in the 100K+ range don't have articles, and won't be getting them either. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alexia isn't always that relevant. Dell Magazines's website gets a 700,000+, but they're a noteworthy publisher.--T. Anthony 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, many articles that aren't in the top 20,000-30,000 are deleted (with a few minor exceptions).  Nish kid 64  01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove all unsourced material. VegaDark 01:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If we removed the unsourced material, the resulting article would be maybe one or two sentences long, at best. Take a look at the sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per...well, I think it's all been said.--Agent Aquamarine 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Precedent has been set to keep the article based on 17 previous AfDs. Give it up already. --Hemlock Martinis 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No consensus due to "BUT I LIKE IT!!!" arguments, a couple bad faith noms, and everything else being speedy kept due to previous nominations sets no precedent. -Amarkov blahedits 01:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only "precedent" the previous AfDs set is that this is a controversial topic. I would agree that 18th nomination would be preposterous, if the consensus to keep would have been reached each time with little controversy. In this case, many of the AfDs were speedy closed, many that weren't failed to reach consensus. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's about time.  Nish kid 64  01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that so many people are voting delete with some comment about how this is finally happening, or how it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also a little uncomfortable with the fact that every single Keep vote has been followed by comments by deletion advocates. I will assume good faith, but the zealousness with which this particular AfD is being pursued is worth noting. That little box at the top of the AfD applies both ways; this is not a vote. Chubbles 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, several comments seem particularly nasty on the deletion side.-- ABigBlackMan 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's not a vote, I really don't see why you have an issue with people arguing against keeping a lot. And this should have happened a long time ago, instead of the masses of "Keep because it's cool" and "Delete because I don't like them" comments. -Amarkov blahedits 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, established notability.. Heck, they even pull stuff in real life. -- ABigBlackMan 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)ABigBlackMan
 * Delete in the strongest possible terms for a paucity of verifiability, as stated many times over the unfortunate history of this non-encyclopaedic article. SM247 My Talk  03:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Probably a pointless gesture, but nuke this pile of unverified non-notable vanity bait, protect the name, and be done with it. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Please. --Mhking 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The attacks are notable, but unvertifiable.Edit: I mean independent source, other than victims. SYSS Mouse 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 18 AfDs is rather pathetic. The article provides reliable sources and the group meets the criteria for WP:N. Becuase it is offensive and childish doesn't mean it doesn't also meet the policy criteria for an article. NeoFreak 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't tell people who disagree that they are really disagreeing because they don't like the group. We don't think there are reliable sources, and saying there are, and that we just dislike them, will convince nobody. -Amarkov blahedits 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I can think of several groups more loathsome or crazy who merit an article. This isn't about whether we like them or not, it's about verifiability and significance.--T. Anthony 04:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I count four reliable, thrid party, non-trivial sources. If you have issue with the content of the article then change it. If you have issues with some of the sourcs used then remove/change them. This article has enough reliable sources to warrant its existence even if not in its current form. Deletion is not justified by any argument put forth here. NeoFreak 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Which of these sources specifically is reliable? Can someone point this out to me because I don't see it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per user Danny Lilithborne, The Anome and good riddance.-- John Lake 05:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt worse troll magnet by 1000x greater than even Encyclopedia Dramatica. It also has huge reliable source problems as I can't find anything not original research on it. Anomo 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks multiple nontrivial reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it gets deleted, there won't be a 19th AfD discussion, which would be a shame. Sam Hocevar 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke vote? Or am I reading it wrong? Nevermind, the answer is apparent. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently not-read his userpage. Chubbles 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We'd have to delete the template as useless, too. Such a shame. -Amarkov blahedits 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there would be 19th AfD. You're forgetting the inevitable AfD after the inevitable Deletion Review. =) =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but it's really not a slam-dunk. Verifiability and reliable sources are the crux:  they are a semi-notable group, but not in a documentable way that currently satisfies Wikipedia's requirements.  Antandrus  (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, definitely notable. If there are verifiability problems, then fix those parts in the article, don't delete it outright. --EBCouncil Speak with the Council 07:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be an issue, but this is an exceptional case of historic significance. I refuse to make decision on GNAA article unless Daniel Brandt is nominated on the same day. You know, one of those days that make me sing... ♫ "GNAA and Brandt in the AfD, and the woo-oo-oorld is all-ah-right..." ♫ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, enough jokes. Merge the few scraps of verifiable content to Troll (Internet), remove the rest. Needs a really big chainsaw trim tough. The group exists and annoys people. Honestly, I don't think they need an article though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no real reason for deletion, meets basic standards. I do, however, applaud folks for keeping this open this time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, We've survived 17 nominations, and I see no problem with the article. lol, kikepedo Koptor 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User's 8th edit.SYSS Mouse 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - verifiability and NPOV concerns per Sandstein et al. One mention in the press does not constitute encyclopedic notability (if it does we'll never delete a failed political candidate again and DRV will be clogged for months to come). A verifiable and neutral article would redirect to Troll (Internet). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Troll (Internet) since that seems to be all that can be independently verified. Kusma (討論) 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect, since immediate recreation is rather likely. Fails WP:V, not-notable. Recury 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; non-notable and non-verifiable. —Psychonaut 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsense. Now. Gah, how long have I wanted to say that? – Gurch 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - for those wanting a merge to Troll (Internet), it might be better to merge to Troll organization. --- RockMFR 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep too notable. Rever e ndG 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V since no cited sources seem to pass WP:RS. What "basic standards" does this article pass?  Barno 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the same arguments I've made in other AfDs... the source cited A) Mostly don't even mention GNAA or B) Are hardly reliable and at best C) Say nothing more than "These guys told us they're a trolling group". Wikipedia was the only party gullible enough to let these people write about themselves, it's time to finally stop that. --W.marsh 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet Morley Safer! - Is the famous GNAA article finally going to get deleted? I never thought I would see the day... ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree completely with W.marsh -- there are no reliable sources currently in the article and nothing in any secondary source that would pass notability criteria. Shell babelfish 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep. Lets cease yelling for free speech and actually do something about it! Cptchipjew

So far: 14 Keep (discounting one with 8 edits), 38 delete (plus one redirect), 5 comment Please continue belowSYSS Mouse 19:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good thing AfDs aren't based off a vote tally. NeoFreak 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

 * Keep - Please stop this pathetic anti-trolls campaign. What are you trying to accomplish? Stop censoring whatever you don't like as Wikipedia is not China. -- Femmina 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest... see . --W.marsh 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comparing a fine trolling organization like the GNAA with wothless blogs is like comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't make sense. - Femmina 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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?
 * Strong Keep - I am not a regular wikipedia contributor but I would like my argument to be heard. Most of the dismissals of GNAA on this page are directly antithetical to the very goals and nature of Wikipedia. To suggest that an organization is irrelevent merely because it could only exist within the recesses of the internet is negating everything this site is trying to establish regarding the validity of collectively established information that only exists in a constant flux.  The majority of GNAA's activities are often deleted or censored as they are intended to be parasitic or disruptive to the sites they were placed on.  As such they may seem to be less prevalent and pervasive than a polling of the internet zeigeist will clearly show that they are.  However, GNAA's antics have been mentioned on G4TechTV (though not by name), as well as on major news sites.  They are responsible for numerous changes in the 'slashcode' and are certainly as well-known as many of the memes given ample coverage on this site.  The offensive nature of this article is not valid grounds for deletion.  To assert offensiveness as a grounds for deletion would be admitting that Wikipedia values the taboos and political sensitivities of the minority over the freedom of information.


 * Delete. Not a single adequate source included or available (and note that not a single one of the citations to third-party sources in the article actually backs up the cited statement). A superb example of Wikipedia's most ingrained systemic bias, the bias towards the inclusion of useless and not-adequately-sourceable information that amuses the denizens of the internet. --RobthTalk 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources no Wikipeida article it's that simple. Whisp e ring 20:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - If George W. Bush's article sucked, you'd fix it. It's got some problems, but this article is quite important in understanding the more organized structure of trolling organizations. --TonySt 20:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Another "I Like It" vote... where are the sources? That's the whole issue here. --W.marsh 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't consensus important in here or am I mistaken? - Femmina 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but so is quality of the argument, and arguments without backing in wikipedia policy don't hold a lot of water. So far I see a lot of people saying that there are no sources, and the keep voters either say "it's notable" or "yes there are."  That's not very convincing.  I can't see more than a single reliable source on the page.  It would be helpful if the keep voters would point them out.  bikeable (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - There were obviously sources at one point if this article stood up against SEVENTEEN noms. Go find them, and bring them back. Don't feed the trolls doesn't apply to the article space. xxpor  yo!|see what i've done 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If these sources are obviose, can you provide us a link? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Many claims are alredy properly referenced, for the rest Google is your friend. - Femmina 21:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous AfDs were kept because of "I've heard of it, so it must be noteable" bias, which thankfully many Wikipedians are starting to grow out of. There never were sources... nobody but Wikipedia is gullible enough to write anything meaningful about this group. --W.marsh 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, 17 times? Also, I'm sure most of those were closed by different admins. xxpor  yo!|see what i've done 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - GNAA is widely known, even if most of the sources are written by victims, it's still a source. What's the worst that will happen if this article stays in here? Wasting 100k in SQL records? 凸 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral Comment (From a non-neutral party) - There are tons of articles that don't have valid sources. See Rob Levin for instance. He's never been named in Time or any newspaper, but that doesn't mean he's not valid. Appearantly, he's even asked for that article to be removed on several occasions, on which it was not. This, along with the votes I've seen today on this page, make me feel as though the entire community of wikipedia (or at least the deleting ones) keep a non-neutral POV. Jmax- 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:INN. Things may be included at the moment that should not be. Things will slip through the cracks.--T. Anthony 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I speak for everyone who has voted delete so far when I say that we in fact love gay niggers. Recury 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. U don't. - Femmina 21:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles has over 21 references, many of them from blogs and other sources. No reliable second source is not grounds for deletion. This is actually a problem with all the trolling article. It is hard to keep any information about troll groups up because the main wiki which documents is not trusted at all by wikipedia and no one else has stepped up to record the information. Regardless the article is verifiable just by the sheer number of primary sourcesIf that were the case all software aritcles and most anime articles would be deleted because no one talked about them. If you do an alexa search on them or a google search they come up and verifiable. --TrollHistorian 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Existence is not the same as notability nor is it the same as verifying what's in an article. If the article is important to you personally you can copy it and put it in an archive on your userpage.--T. Anthony 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. I'm antitroll, but who isn't? This article should have been deleted a long time ago. Topses 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I can't see any good reason to delete this article. There is no source problem : I can't find a single statement that can't be easily verified. Seems to me the source problem is used as a false pretext to delete an article on an organization they do not like. The GNAA is well known, for the Slashdot, HP and OS X trolling. It is much more notable than thousand and thousand of smaller organizations in Wikipedia. We should not care about whether we like the topic or not but whether the article is OK, and it obviously is. Manuel Menal 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked before and I ask again, which of those sources meets WP:RS? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not neutral, but the article has been around for a long time, and it's survived 17 previous VFDs. It's obvious that the page is mostly vanity drivel, but that can easily be remedied. It should stick around, but it definitely needs pruning.Drano 23:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * claimed member of GNAA. SYSS Mouse 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The GNAA (spit) is about as annoying as an uncreative troll organization can get. They are, nevertheless, notable, even though I rather wish they weren't. -- Victor Lighthill 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On what sources are you basing your assertion of notability? As you know, "notable" in the context of Wikipedia refers to a subject that has garnered enough coverage in reliable sources to produce a verifiable article that's more than a directory listing.  How does GNAA demonstrate such notability? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are more blog articles with less sources all over Wikipedia and they're not getting deleted. There WERE plenty of sources in this article, until someone went (cite) happy again and removed 90% of them. --timecop 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Replying to self, now that I saw the article again, exactly what 'sources' does it lack? There are plenty of references and a number of external links. Sounds like a bad faith/troll nomination to me. --timecop 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * GNAA has received a total of zero non-trivial coverage in independent and reliable published sources. Blogs don't count, anonymous postings to message boards don't count, and gnaa.us doesn't count.  That's all original research.  The fact that the research is done online and can be repeated by any of us does not make it any less original. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Above user is the creator of GNAA. --- RockMFR 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. Their name keeps them from being notable in reliable sources, but several of the incidents they have caused that are mentioned in the article are themselves notable pranks.  One article is better than separate ones for each of those.  User's third edit.
 * Strong Keep - There's no reason to delete this. It was decided that it should be kept 17 other times, I say keep it again--24.46.154.143 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Arbitrary section break 3
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)


 * Keep - Had the initiator of this AFD not been a user of merely a few months, they probably would have realized that this article has 17 failed AfD's. The clear consensus on Wikipedia is that this article should be kept.  No new information has been uncovered since the last unsuccessful AfD that would warrant a re-nomination.  Keep per consensus. cacophony 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the clear consensus. There have been three AfDs which were really good, and they all ended in no consensus. The rest were either bad faith nominations, or were speedy kept because of the nonexistent precedent. -Amarkov blahedits 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree per my above comment. cacophony 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per above? What? -Amarkov blahedits 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not said anything that would legitimately disprove any of what I said. cacophony 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, because I just said that there is no clear consensus, which is what your argument is based on. -Amarkov blahedits 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be having trouble with this whole indentation thing. Regardless, how many of the AfD's were successful, out of how many AfD's that have taken place in total?  Please get back to me on this. cacophony 01:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring why they weren't sucessful, which was mostly because of no consensus, bad faith, and keeps like 3 hours after the nomination. And I really don't see a reason to keep extending the indentations, but whatever. -Amarkov blahedits 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And you're ignoring my question, so let me re-state it. How many of the AfD's were successful, out of how many AfD's that have taken place in total? cacophony 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 0 out of 17. That still is a useless statistic, because it gives equal weight to keeps, no consensuses, bad faith noms, and speedy keeps. -Amarkov blahedits 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 0/17 is correct. There has never once been a consensus to delete this article, and nothing has changed since any of them. cacophony 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They were not kept due to any kind of rational arguments. They were kept due to people who just said "Keep because I like it", and people who complained that there were verifiable sources without providing any, until they all started being speedy kept for no apparent reason. -Amarkov blahedits 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had a problem with the speedy keeps, you should have brought it up on Deletion Review. xxpor  yo!|see what i've done 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have had I been aware of them before I saw this. -Amarkov blahedits 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not including no consensus results and speedy keeps, it was kept once? Maybe? And consensus can change, you know. -Amarkov blahedits 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As Vice President of the GNAA, I heartily encourage you to delete this article, as it will galvinize our memberbase into hillarious retribution. The GNAA has no place on wikipedia. -- l0de
 * Forged vote, see


 * Keep per WP:SNOW.  Doc Sigma  (wait, what?) 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... How does this have CLOSE to the chance of passing required for WP:SNOW? -Amarkov blahedits 01:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable sources. The lack of reliable sources is a symptom of the lack of notability. Unsourced articles about unnotable groups get deleted. Eventually. By an administrator who follows logic rather than tallys "votes". - Nunh-huh 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of expressing my opinion in words, I will say Keep, with major reservations and much work to be done on the article. Resonanteye
 * If you don't express your opinion in words, how do we know why you want to keep it? This is not a vote, we are discussing.


 * I believe I just clicked through all the external links on that article that didn't point to gnaa.us or gnaauk.co.uk, which aren't independent sources. I didn't find any non-trivial coverage of GNAA in independent published sources other than personal blogs.  There's certainly a lot more content in the article than can be gleaned from the available source material.  I would say it's a lot of original research, which has been around for so long because its supporters have been so persistent, and we haven't been strict enough about insisting on verifiability.  I suggest we pare the article down to information that can be sourced in reliable secondary sources, and if there's nothing left, delete it. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, notability is not the problem, verfiability is, the folks that want to keep it have yet to show how it meets WP:V. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So the question then becomes how to verify a group that no traditional print media can mention by name? That's an interesting question. It almost makes me like the bastards. If it's going to get kept again, this has to be answered with a solution. Resonanteye 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that no traditional print media can mention it by name. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it gets kept again, the decision implies that isn't an issue. -Amarkov blahedits 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus cannot override policy, WP:V is a policy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why a decision to keep would imply that isn't an issue. -Amarkov blahedits 01:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, a decision to keep does not mean it is verifiable, I cannot image how that logic works. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd think it would still need sources, and that keeping it would imply a chance to assemble some, not an altogether rousing cheer for the current version (which admittedly could use some help.)

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)


 * Weakish Delete: I note that somebody mentioned that freedom of speech should be one such reason to prevent this article being deleted, but I must disagree, freedom of speech doesn't extend to keeping articles which for all I now could be total gibberish made up at school some day. I do find the promotion of a group that uses the word 'nigger' quite unpleasant but that's neither here nor there. I don't see why I should bother adding references to articles if totally unreferenced articles will actually be allowed to remain. That said, if it only needs references, I'd leave the article for 7 days and if no sources are added, the page is deleted and protected to prevent recreation in order to prevent a AfD no 19. Kind Regards -  Heligoland  |  Talk  |  Contribs  01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that in more than two years, someone could have found reliable sources if there were any. -Amarkov blahedits 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand how the fact that something was not put in an article proof of the existence or non-existence thereof. Or maybe you’re not using usual logic. Sam Hocevar 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been nominated for deletion seventeen times before. I can't imagine verifiability didn't come up. Thus, SOMEONE almost certainly tried to find reliable sources. Since this person presumably wanted the article kept, they would have found any if they existed. -Amarkov blahedits 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus the burden of proof for verifiability is on the party the seeks to include information. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable per V and RS. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I really don't think they're notable outside of Wikipedia. --Conti|&#9993; 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidently you haven't spent much time on Slashdot. Salad Days 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of expressing my opinion in words, I will say Keep, with major reservations and much work to be done on the article. Resonanteye


 * 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.