Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (3rd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep, however the vote was prematurely removed from VfD by a user I have not as yet determined. This has caused a voting irregularity, and thus I have created a new VfD. Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America
Note: Because this nomination was created by a sockpuppet for the purpose of disruption, I've protected it, removed the notice from the GNAA article, and noted my decision here. Feel free to discuss it there or on the talk page. &mdash; Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 18:49 (UTC) Please ignore this. It was apparently a good faith nomination and should be discussed. I request the VfD closer to wait for a full five day lag time (the VfD was interrupted for seven days). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)


 * Gay Nigger Association of America was nominated for deletion on 2004-04-30. The result of the discussion was "consensus not reached". For the prior discussion see Template:VfD-GNAA.
 * Gay Nigger Association of America was nominated for deletion again on 2004-08-18. The result of the discussion was not provided by SimonP who closed it. For the prior discussion see this version of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America.
 * Gay Nigger Association of America was nominated for deletion again on 2004-09-27. The result of the discussion was "no consensus to delete". For the prior discussion see this version of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America.
 * Gay Nigger Association of America was nominated for deletion again on 2004-12-25. The result of the discussion was to de-list the discussion and do nothing. For the prior discussion see this diff of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America. (Note that this discussion was never closed, and several editors subsequently added comments to what they believed was an open discussion.)

Non-notable; this is just a bunch of Internet trolls. We don't have an article for every Internet troll who posts something inflammatory on Slashdot, so why this small bunch of them? Convene 30 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)
 * Oh my, what do we have here: Special:Contributions/Convene. Sure looks like a sockpuppet account created for the purpose of VFD'ing GNAA! I call this entire bullshit invalid. --Timecop 1 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
 * Note that this vfd was added six minutes after the user's creation. --Lysol July 1, 2005 07:08 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, this should be fun. As some of our newer editors may not be aware, VfDing GNAA is a time-honoured tradition on Wikipedia, but what the heck, let's give it another shot: Delete, not notable. --W(t) 1 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
 * Really? As far as I knew, it's only been on VFD once before and that was six months ago...? --Convene 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
 * According to your profile, you just registered now and all you've done is register this article for VFD. supers 1 July 2005 16:01 (JST)
 * I can recall at least three previous times, but the highest number I've seen claimed would make this the sixth. You'll have to dig deep in the archives to find anything other than the last one though. I'd skip it if I were you, not very compelling reading. --W(t) 1 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
 * Had you consulted the talk page you would have found links to the previous four deletion debates. Mackensen (talk) 1 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
 * My bad. I didn't know that consulting the talk page for an article was a prerequisite for VfD. --Convene 1 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)
 * First of all it is, and second of all there is a notice at the top of the actual article in HTML comment tags. How did you manage to not notice that? --TexasDex July 1, 2005 07:07 (UTC)
 * Keep; Long, well-written article with many external links. Anything is notable enough to put on the Internet. What's the harm? There's unlimited space. As a matter of fact, there is no space! It's all electrical impulses, etc.   ‡   Jarlaxle   July 1, 2005 00:05 (UTC)
 * I claim that my left foot is the most beautiful left foot in the world. Does that mean it gets an article? I can source it, I've just stated here that I think so (I'm not saying we should write that my left foot is the most beautiful in the world, merely that I claim it to be so). Weyes' left foot. (I'd rather not tread the fine line of autobiographies, so if you could make the stub that'd be much appreciated). --W(t) 1 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
 * But the article about your left foot being the most beautiful left foot in the world would be pure POV. This article is not POV. I get your point, though.   ‡   Jarlaxle   July 1, 2005 00:45 (UTC)
 * Nope, it wouldn't be POV. Everyone agrees I claim my left foot is the prettiest for that ever there were, and that's all the article would say. (And if they didn't, we could have an article that I claim that I claim my left foot is oh so pretty whereas others deny this, etc, etc.) --W(t) 1 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
 * While it's true that anyone who wants to put something on the Internet ought to be able to do so, a Wikimedia project is not always the most appropriate place to put it. --Convene 1 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
 * Delete. Never belonged here, still doesn't. - Nunh-huh 1 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see its that time of year again. Keep. Notable. More notable than a whole lotta other junk on WP that doesn't get constantly VFD'd. Please. --Mrfixter 1 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable bullGateman1997 1 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
 * Keep --SPUI (talk) 1 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
 * Comment why are people intending to push for the deletion of the article? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
 * Most of the links for sources provided in the article seem to be not working or no longer available. Plus, if CNN mentioned them, we would have found something like that already. So, I wish to place my vote in the delete column. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong Keep, I'm fed up with people getting bent out of shape just because the entry has the word "Nigger" in the title. --Jacj 1 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote to a strong keep because it turns out that this has been on VfD four times before, and this is just a blatant abuse of process. This VfD should be cancelled. --Jacj 1 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. It's nothing to do with the name of the entry; it's non-notable, simple as that. --Convene 1 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only 118 displayed hits for "Gay Nigger Association of America" (and many are Wikipedia mirrors)--way below the standard inclusion criteria. Nothing to do with the name, it's just simply not notable. Niteowlneils 1 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
 * Comment, from even a site like Slashdot, they are mentioned roughly 500 times. Source: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=GNAA+site%3Aslashdot.org&btnG=Google+Search&meta=. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
 * Just because something is well-known on one website doesn't make it notable. --Convene 1 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
 * That just proves the point that this could be just a a Slashdot thing, thus the neverending VFD's. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ausaas is only mentioned 134 times on google, and Imiut fetish is only mentioned 35 times, but they are both very notable.    1 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Niteowlneils. Mackensen (talk) 1 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
 * Oh, just delete the article and be done with it. We should not even be acknowledging trolls, much less feeding them.  Denelson83  1 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)


 * Weak keep OR merge to Slashdot trolling phenomena. &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable outside of Slashdot and other forums. Failing that, merge into Slashdot trolling phenomenon. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 1, 2005 01:30 (UTC)


 * Keep. Palestine-info
 * Delete. K1Bond007 July 1, 2005 02:44 (UTC)
 * Delete as always. Gazpacho 1 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
 * Delete. And here we go again.... Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions July 1, 2005 03:07 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. How many times do we have to rehash this over and over again? After so many attempts, it is time to let it go regardless of your feelings one way or the other.  At this point it's just wasting everyone's time.  See WP:POINT. Gamaliel 1 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
 * Hey, this one's new to me. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  July 1, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
 * Same here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
 * Keep. This VfD is an abuse of process. Rhobite July 1, 2005 04:32 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Rhobite. Darnit, my third guess at Millionth topic pool should've been Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America 95.  (should've known!) --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
 * Speedly Delete, vanity, not notable, not encyclopedic. Almafeta 1 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)
 * It seems that someone has decided to strike this vote, which is good. Looking at the user page, I'd like this individual to respond to my allegations that pages such as 2 Sense, Sabrina Online and Supermegatopia are astoundingly less notable than the GNAA, who like them or not, have in fact achieved mass media recognition for some of their antics.
 * None of which are actually criteria for speedy deletion... Rhobite July 1, 2005 05:46 (UTC)
 * Well, will his vote for delete still count? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)
 * Here we go again... : Keep because notable enough. Sietse 1 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)
 * Keep, as usual; notable troll organization. --Angr/undefined 1 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. We've been over this before. View my comments on all previous VfD's for my justifications. Stop wasting our time. Ich July 1, 2005 06:13 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough activities, and there are even more today than for the last VfD (the Tiger for Intel hoax, which was even mentioned on TV). Sam Hocevar 1 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
 * KEEP And stop trying to get rid of it FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. After they just pulled the OSX x86 hoax, which got substantial media attention the last thing they should be called is 'non-notable'.  It has already been decided, time and time again, that this article should not be deleted.  You may not like what they do, but this is one of the best-written and most cross-referenced articles on Wikipedia.  In fact if possible I vote that we completely block this page from ever being VFD'd again, because the process has been abused so frequently by people who don't like the organization.  What part of "was not deleted over the course of 4 VFDs" don't you people understand?--TexasDex July 1, 2005 06:29 (UTC)
 * ...one of the best-written and most cross-referenced articles on Wikipedia. What I do understand is that no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig it's not getting a contract at Warner Brothers. That it failed to be consigned to the bit bucket has less to do with its laughable notability or encyclopedic quality than it has to do with the fervor of its defenders. --Calton | Talk 1 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
 * no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig. So you're saying that all articles about unpleasant, distasteful, or controversial topics should be deleted, no matter how informative and notable they are?  And yes, this is notable, there's no point in arguing that anymore.--TexasDex July 1, 2005 06:58 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP - Four failed VFD's, this is becoming pointless. The TechTV clip is more media attention than Kikepedia will EVER get. What can you possibly say that hasn't already been said? A wise man once said about wikipedia, "they want a place where they're king, and open source doesn't fail it, and they get to control their own little bullshit." USELESS WASTE OF TIME.
 * The TechTV clip is more media attention than Kikepedia will EVER get. That statement is not, as they, reality based. --Calton | Talk 1 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
 * KEEP - The article has survived four previous VFD attempts. It's blatantly obvious that this new attempt is simply an abuse of power instigated by individuals who have a personal problem with the organization.
 * As mentioned earlier, some people who start the VFD's might not have known about previous VFD's or had participated in this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
 * Nice excuse, but that doesn't fly. Obviously this time the deleter is a sockpuppet account of chocolateboy, pgunn, or whoever else GNAA pissed off. And last I looked at the GNAA page, there was a HTML comment at the TOP OF THE ARTICLE (where you'd be putting the VFD template), mentioning that the article was in VFD 4 other times.
 * Delete. Non-notable troll-cruft. jni 1 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and not encyclopedic.  Kaibabsquirrel 1 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the GNAA members want actual notability, perhaps they ought to do something to earn it. --Calton | Talk 1 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
 * 4+ VFD's and it's not notable? The x86 OS10 troll also made it to TechTV.  Other GNAA antics have been reported in non-trolling-related media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.89.53 (talk • contribs) 06:54, July 1, 2005
 * KEEP - It survived three other VfDs, doesnt that tell you anything? - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.0.40 (talk • contribs) 06:50, July 1, 2005
 * KEEP - How many times do we need to go through this? GNAA is probably the most note worthy nussiance to the internet to this date. It should be included.supers 1 July 2005 15:53 (JST)
 * Comment: supers account has less than a dozen edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
 * Keep. GNAA pulled a number of high-profile internet trolls which got media attention. Hell, for the OSX troll, someone was scanning random wireless AP's, and they saw a string of "GNAAGNAA" coming across the radio waves, you KNOW GNAA's popular when you pickup a random wifi signal and they're in the middle of being trolled by GNAA. And plz, stop abusing wikipedia policy and trying to delete this article. --Timecop 1 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)
 * KEEP - What a fine waste of Wikipedia's time. Again, keep for various reasons stated in previous vfds. --Lysol July 1, 2005 06:57 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I learned about this organization from this article. And it's OBVIOUSLY notable because it has survived 5 VfDs. You know there really needs to be a policy about this shit --????
 * Keep.     1 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
 * keep. I thought that this was just here, this has to be my 3rd time voting on this :p. If I had a Wikiwish - No VfD's on articles that survived a VfD with consensus for at least 6 months. It also prevents VfD trolling which may or may not be the case here. --ShaunMacPherson 1 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
 * That hypothetical policy wouldn't apply here. There has not been a consensus, one way or the other, about this article, in any of its VFD discussions. Uncle G July 1, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
 * Keep. We've been over this 4 times already.  There's a big notice at the top of the page mentioning the previous VfDs, right where someone adding a VfD notice can't possibly miss it.  Listing this on VfD was this user's first edits  besides updating his user page.  Please don't waste everyone's time. Dave6 1 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is getting bloody stupid! We've voted this issue four times now. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 1 July 2005 07:52 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into Slashdot trolling phenomena: topics are acceptable that have low google counts but are encyclopedic, such as the above-mentioned Imiut, but this topic is troll-cruft AND has a very low google count.--Nectarflowed T 1 July 2005 09:17 (UTC)
 * Keep: Innovative and notable. Let's keep things here more constructive and have a bit more understanding. No more vfd's out of spite! -- Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.95.207 (talk • contribs) 09:20, July 1, 2005
 * Keep, interesting article, but a bit biased. instead of deleting it - perhaps you could try to remove some of the POV that is there. Adamn 1 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
 * Keep, the GNAA have performed high-profile trolls, and so I feel that an article is justified. --Dave2 2005-07-01 09:38:14 (UTC)
 * ****KEEP**** How many votes will it take you dolts to realize the GNAA is totally unstoppable? Death to all unbelievers. -l0de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.208.21 (talk • contribs) 09:45, July 1, 2005
 * Delete but I am not optimistic - they can advocate themselves here - Skysmith 1 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vote changed to Delete because somehow this doesn't meet the standard for a speedy deletion.  And could someone please put strikethroughs through the anonymous/spoofed votes?  I hate to reference google, but when 110 out of 120 of their Google hits are Wikipedias or its mirrors...  Almafeta 1 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
 * Comment - Anonymous votes should not be discounted from any VfD. Just given less weight in the final consideration Adamn 1 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established. -- Joolz 1 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)
 * Google search for their recent OSX x86 prank results in 34,000 hits. Appending GNAA to that search still results in over 5,000 hits. --TexasDex July 1, 2005 18:22 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pitability does not equate to notability. -- Karada 1 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)
 * Keep CowboyNeal proofreads my articles. Project2501a 1 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete. We don't seriously need to... how should I put it... promote this kind of behavior? -- Penwhale 1 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
 * Comment - ok, lets delete Murder and Suicide too, then. Get real.
 * Should I go VfD Al-Qaeda then? We certainly don't want to promote that that kind of behavior, do we? --TexasDex July 1, 2005 18:22 (UTC)
 * When I suggested it we were due for another GNAA VfD I didn't really think it would happen. Well, surviving 4 VfDs doesn't equal notability, nor does being a group of morons. But I'll be moderate and vote to merge (some) and redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Can anyone name One other trolling organization on the same level as the GNAA? Oh and before it becomes an issue (I know you guys like to tell people that their vote doesn't count):67.187.107.207 1 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * Anyone can contribute to the discussion and vote, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users.
 * Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process. Again, the votes are not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier.67.187.107.207 1 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * Delete nn - Shoaler 1 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Keep Just as notable and encyclopedic as it was for the previous four VfDs. How many times will this need to be decided? siafu 1 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hedley 1 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
 * Delete. Profoss 1 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seem to be completely without encyclopedic merit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Blatant trolling by way of VfD for an encyclopedic article on a notable trolling organization.  Irony ensues.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 7 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shouldn't there be some equivalent of the "double jeopardy" provision here, where an article shouldn't have to face constant attempts to delete it? (Granted, the outcome of the past attempts seem to be more along the lines of hung juries and mistrials than acquittals.) *Dan* July 8, 2005 00:32 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason why there is a double jeopardy provision in real life is because if you commit a crime, the nature of the crime cannot be changed in the future. However, an entry can be changed for the worse, and/or an initial VfD may have been so inundated with sockpuppets or abusive behaviour as to be useless. So I see nothing inherently wrong with multiple VfDs. There's a six month gap between this VfD and the last. That hardly seems abusive. --Jacj 8 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is about a subject that is indeed notable, seeing all of the trouble that they have caused in various places. Plus, they stand for all trolling on Slashdot as far as making articles about it, and they have as much as their own website and have, from what I have heard, gained quite some infamy. Oklonia 8 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
 * Keep I say we keep this. It's totally worth it. Jsut becasue you don't read it in britanica, doesn't mean it's in valid, after all, I haven't seen Slashdot, Fark or even Wikipeida itself in Britanica. &rarr; (preceding unsigned comment posted by 70.64.30.170 on July 7, 2005 19:59 UTC)
 * Keep. I've watched this article for a while now and it's only improved. This is a pretty interesting troll organization, and though some say we shouldn't feed the trolls, if the trolls are notable (if only on Slashdot) then they should be mentioned here.   &mdash;shoecream July 8, 2005 03:11 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Stop abuse of the VFD process. Seriously, 37+ people die in a TERRORIST attack on LONDON and all you people can do is attempt to delete a legitimate article that has already survived this process 4 times previously. GET SOME PRIORITIES!! GNAA Zeikfried 8 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page does not establish notability of this group. Vanity. Threshold of inclusion for internet groups should be higher than for other pages, since their proponents (members of the group in question) are more likely to round up support on the web than proponents of other pages. Equal standards will likely result in Wikipedia being biased towards internet vanity pages such as this. Please move this vote to the VfD page when the unilateral blocking of the VfD by an admin has been reverted . Martg76 2 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in a deletion review, if it does not; or below this section.