Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (6th 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 of the debate was speedy keep. This has already been voted on 7 times. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, guys. These trolls are NOT NOTABLE. I don't care how many people on Wikipedia have heard of them (see WP:SELF), they just aren't. Please, let's delete this article and end this nonsense once and for all. Firebug 09:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vanity article. Thesquire 09:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep(now Neutral), based upon seven previous attempts at deletion. - Rudykog 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the attempts at deletion? What about the subject of the article? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the subject may be offensive to many, however I feel that the content, whether NN or not is in agreement with Wikipedia rules. I do not believe that the group or the article attempt to offend anyone or any group. Perhaps there should be an offensive warning label? - Rudykog 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is not whether or not it is "offensive." It is about notability. And if it was NN, it would not be in agreement with Wikipedia rules because it is NN! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I see now, I didn't pay attention enough, I revise my vote to Neutral. - Rudykog 10:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this has survived no fewer than seven previous AfDs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Jamie 09:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but most of them were "no concensus." That people have tried so many times speaks for itself, but not in favor of keeping it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I revised my vote to neutral. Let's see if this AfD actually succeeds, finally. Jamie 11:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - people on wikipedia may have heard of them, but they are not notable in any encyclopedic fashion. Wikipedia isn't the collecting place of every miniscule piece of internet trivia, including a trolling organization that operates on one or two sites. Regarding all the previous AfDs - like the Japanese say: "Fall down seven times, stand up eight." We've messed up seven times by not deleting this nonsense, but eventually it will be done. -Parallel or Together ? 10:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - They have always been non-notable. But the shitstorm that errupts every time this has been brought here (and FAC) has brought the page to the attention of almost every active Wikipedian, creating the false air of notability. Like Parallel said, we've heard of them, but they are not encyclopedic. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Generates 981 Google hits [8] and 249 of those are from Wikipedia [9]. They may be widely known amongst portions of the internet community, but they have not achieved notability outside of that. Movementarian 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Movementarian. A quarter of their total notability originates with Wikipedia - and the Internet is their specialty. Durova 10:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trolling Wikipedia doesn't automatically make you notable. Average Earthman 10:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Regarding Google hits, it appears that most websites mentioning the GNAA do not spell it out (for easily guessable reasons). GNAA gives 69,400 results, an indeterminate proportion of which obviously refer to other topics. However, I refined my search and discovered that +GNAA +slashdot gives 11,800 results, +GNAA +IRC gives 23,800 results, and +GNAA +internet gives 29,400 results. All of the results from the last three queries appear to exclusively pertain to the Gay Nigger Association of America. This group has achieved notability, even by my (perceivedly harsh) standards for inclusion, previous nominations not being a factor. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:06, Dec. 15, 2005

• Comment. Fair enough. I can agree that my google search was too restrictive, but still don't think that they have achieved notability outside of the pockets of the internet community that they effect. Movementarian 11:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self-referential article, whose first sentence states its subject's non-notability ("self-aggrandizing"), and which may violate WP:BEANS. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete much of the "keep" commentary on previous nominations seemed to be based on the assumption that, while not well-known elsewhere, the GNAA is very famous on Slashdot. However, being active on Slashdot myself and doing quite a fair amount of browsing there, I've found that this simply isn't true. In maybe 3 months of at least daily visits, I haven't seen anything there by or about the GNAA, not even in passing reference. Granted, I wasn't exactly looking, but still, if these guys were truly the scourge of Slashdot, you'd think they'd be mentioned with some regularity. Also notice that, while the article has a decently-sized references section, it's (almost) all forum posts, blog entries, and the like. If their activities were important, why aren't they reported on in newspapers? Why aren't they profiled in any published books? The answer, of course, is that forum trolling is only of any interest to a very, very, very small number of people (mostly the trolls themselves) and that individual trolls and groups are seldom, if ever, notable or verifiable in an encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To my knowledge the GNAA is not particularly famous on Slashdot and no good verifiable evidence to that effect has been presented. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep based on the fact that the page is used for reference by several Wikipedia administration pages on the subject of article vandalism, since a number of alleged members of this group are regular vandals. Perhaps, for that reason, this can be moved into some sort of administrative space rather than kept in article space? 23skidoo 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Notability is not a deletion criterion, and since you haven't provided any other rationale, there is no reason to delete it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 17:42
  • Notability is too a deletion criterion and claiming otherwise is dishonest. [10] Ashibaka tock 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf this is unspeedied then why does the comment still survive below? The way this nomination has been handled is very strange and stifles debate. Durova 21:41, 15 December 2005 (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.