Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SimonP (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 8 September 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 ‎

  • Keep This whole article is a load of crap, just like the organisation it describes. However, what is the harm in it? GNAA degrades slashdot threads, GNAA offends and frustrates readers frequently. People who are annoyed at GNAA have the right to know about the organisation that is pissing them off. And if Goat-see wishes to bring us this information then why not let him? These morons have got on my nerves in the past, if they wern't real they would have never had the same effect. To get rid of it would be stupid. --Scarlet 15:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to trolling or Slashdot trolling phenomenon This whole thing should be revisited. The page has devolved into opinions being slung back and forth. No one knows what the "facts" are, although it's clear that the authors of the page that keeps getting reverted aren't interested in facts (on their webpage they claim they've bought the company SCO). Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a place for trolls to advertise?
  • 1105, 5 Sep 2004 by user TarBaby: "No one knows what the facts are". Yes, many people do know a good many facts pertinent to GNAA/GNAA wiki. Please do some research before spouting off.
    • 13:42, 2 Sep 2004 User:SilentCrs, sign your posts with ~~~~ please. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • SilentCrs, the page has only "devolved into opinions" since you started making PoV changes to the article. The encyclopaedic quality of the entry had been resolved until you made your new edits without evidence to backup your minority viewpoint. The facts can be found with simple Google searches of keywords, and the authors of the page have only made occasional edits prior to your intrusion. In response to your point regarding the GNAA website - it is quite obviously a spoof website, not intended to deceive. The GNAA entry does not state that the website is true, merely that it exists.

      Further, I don't see how this article is a bad vanity page when we have detailed individual articles for such things as Goatse.cx, shock sites and other such phenomena. While I agree that the entry in past revisions were arguably too laden with details, adding your uncorroborated interjections does not help. --170.224.224.134 23:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. SilentCrs's edits are pretty POV themselves. I think the write-up he changed didn't need to be modified (much). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • We've been through this before, and found that a previous version of the page I keep reverting to was acceptable. Your edits are vitriolic towards the organization and do nothing more than mock it. Goat-see 14:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You're PART of the organization. How can you be unbiased about the article? Further, how is having a title such as this in the article not vitriolic?
      • how can anyone be unbiased? no opinion is truely impartial, and of course some are less so than others, but i believe that even the most clearly biased contributions have some worth. fwiw, the GNAA page (ante the current controversy) was sufficiently NPOV to my tastes. ✈ James C. 02:31, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
      • So should members of the Ku Klux Klan not be allowed to edit an article on themselves? How about someone from the NBA? Or, is the right to freedom of speech only restricted to non-internet groups? I'm not actively whoring the group, unlike how SilentCrs is actively denouncing it. I am here to present the facts about the group as I see them. Being IN the group, I have insight to the activities and practices that you do not. (Also, I'm ignoring the second half of the unsigned comment because I've reread it a few times and still couldn't make sense of it.) Goat-see 14:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You may dispute its POV or accuracy elsewhere. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomenon. -Sean Curtin 17:34, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. anthony (see warning) 15:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've already been through this, and a previous vote was greatly in favour of retaining the article as it is now. It seems only a small minority of misanthropes keeps wanting to throw it out. I don't care for GNAA, and wish their members would get a life, but they are an important part of Internet trolling and have victimised many public forums, and for this notoriety they deserve an article. I see no falsehoods in the article, and through some research of my own have verified most of it with no problems. Crculver 19:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Tentatively agree with Sean Curtin: "merge and redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomenon." I can't see why this is important enough to merit treatment at this length. I also would remark that the article as it stands is hideously unbalanced in that it helps a self-aggrandizing group with their self-aggrandizement, without providing even a single cited criticism of their obviously offensive name and reprehensible conduct. -- Jmabel 19:40, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • I still stand by my remark about "offensive name and reprehensible conduct" but various remarks below strongly suggest that the article should exist. Reluctant keep. -- Jmabel 07:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge. GNAA already has a mention in Slashdot trolling phenomena. No need to help these kids out with free advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for reasons given above and in the talk page of the GNAA entry. --170.224.224.134 23:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Anonymous editors cannot vote. To do so, create an account. --Slowking Man 23:31, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I have a good knack for forgetting my Wikipedia user passwords, so I'll simply withdraw my "vote" and just leave the explanations I gave above and under the GNAA entry's talk page. --170.224.224.134 23:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomenon. The detail is excessive for the importance of the group. Geogre 00:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomenon. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. People actually visit it when they wanna know what the GNAA is. That is sufficient reason --TexasDex 01:20, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Slashdot trolling phenomenon -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I have withdrawn my vote from this discussion altogether -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep because GNAA isn't just about Slashdot anymore. WhisperToMe 02:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • keep, for all of the reasons given by others. and we mustn't set a precedent of getting pages deleted simply by repeatedly adding them to VfD. VfD decisions must be conclusive and accepted, lest the purpose of VfD lose all authority. ✈ James C. 02:31, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a great commentary on not only free speech, but stands as a criticism of the hypocrisy of modern 'equality'. Trolls are supposed to make you think, and this talk page itself shows more than anything that it needs to stay. --Lysol 02:56, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • This user is associated with GNAA and has vandalized Wikipedia in the past. --Shibboleth 05:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The GNAA is more than a Slashdot trolling organization, they have performed operations into many many other realms besides slashdot which should allow them to get the recognition they deserve. --Saturn SL1-WNY
    • This is this user's only contribution to wikipedia so far. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a notable trolling organisation, and there should at least be an article on them. I think that the submitter wants to delete the page because he doesn't like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merging with Slashdot Trolling Phenomenon would be a bad idea because the GNAA has little to do with Slashdot anymore. Deletion would be unfair and without merit. The GNAA does exist, and arguments that it somehow isn't a "real" organization because of its outlandish claims and/or content are misguided. The GNAA is a trolling organization, and as such contains a great deal of troll humor and satirical content in its website and press releases. Any cretin can clearly see that GNAA didn't really acquire SCO or bomb the Christmas Islands, and I don't see anyone recommending deletion of The Onion for similar antics. Furthermore, the article is NOT meant to be an advertisement for the organization, and it is not a vanity page. If anyone feels there is a slant in the article, let us resolve the issue intelligently rather than scrapping the article because of anti-GNAA prejudice.GNAA Popeye 04:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This vote constitutes the majority of this user's contributions to wikipedia so far, see further details below. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • So? How do you know he didn't make anonymous edits? His vote is just as valid as your own. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I haven't said it isn't, please don't put words into my mouth -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - The size of this organization and its overall notability are definately worthy of a page. There are many things on wikipedia that are (potentially) just as offensive as this organization's name, so that in itself is not a valid reason. Is this communist Russia? (Also, please don't delete my vote. I am a real person and I've donated money to the Wikipedia foundation. This is my first account on this site and my first vote.) Dominotree 04:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This vote constitutes the majority of this user's contributions to wikipedia so far. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. silsor 05:07, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect and maybe mention briefly. I've been a keen Slashdotter for over 6 years, and I've never heard of them before, so they can't be that significant. PhilHibbs 09:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Obviously you don't pay much attention to /. then. Go read it and look for "first posts" (which may be modded down so you don't see them.) DX 14:54, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and add more info--Xed 12:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anti-troll propoganda is getting out of hand. This is a real organization, with activities that are infuential on the internet and on Slashdot. There are huge sections on completely ficticious organizations. Just because some people have a bug up their ass about trolling doesn't mean their POV should be allowed to censor genuine information. 213.206.33.82 12:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Anonymous editors cannot vote. To do so, create an account. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, you can take away people's rights, censor anyone you don't like. That's the definition of a Cabal. 213.206.33.82 06:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • You've been informed how to vote here, the only cabal is the one inside your head. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • keep as notable —siroχo 18:41, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The GNAA is a real organization, and is no longer just about Slashdot. DX 02:18, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, redirecting to Slashdot Trolling Phenomenon would be a mistake -- if any of you have actually read the STP page (doubtful) then you'd find out that that's 1) just about /. and 2) just about the different types of trolling which is rampant on /. alone. The GNAA barely deals with /. anymore, what with the recent attacks on 4chan and all. DX 14:50, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, alas. They're everywhere. And if I didn't read Slashdot and saw a mention I'd want to know just what exactly they were. Mindspillage 07:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep because people must know the wonders of GNFOS Relex
    • This vote constitutes this user's sole contribution to wikipedia so far. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • You tell people they can't vote without an account, so they get one, and try to vote, then you disparage them for doing that. It just goes to show you have no respect for anyone who does not hold your opinion. 195.158.9.78 08:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • When counting up the votes at the end of the vfd period some sysops will discount suspected sockpuppet votes, particularly if it looks as if consensus is likely not to be reached. In this case there appears to be rough consensus to keep this article. I am not disparaging anyone, merely pointing out for the benefit of whoever counts up these votes at the end (and I can assure you it won't be me) which of the votes are from regular users who have created an account and which are not. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 195.158.9.78 08:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course! 08:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • User:TarBaby 1110, 5 Sep 2004: Keep!
  • Merge and Redirect --Spoom 17:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it, I read it a while back ago and found it interesting. Their name be offensive and they do stupid stuff, but it's still an interesting phenomenon. Foolip 17:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it.
  • Delete. -- McDutchie
    • I'd love to hear McDutchie's (and everyone else who just leaves one word votes, be they Keep or Delete) reasoning behind this, just out of 100% complete curiousity.

I think we've got more than enough "keep" votes to end this and keep. 68.203.195.204 04:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since that came from an anon, it doesn't carry much "official" weight, but in this case I think it's correct. -- Jmabel 07:07, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Er, that was me, sorry. Forgot to log in. DX 15:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I received the following email:

From: GNAA Popeye (actual email address suppressed) To: Jmabel (my actual email address suppressed) Cc: Date: Thursday, September 02, 2004 07:33 pm Subject: Hy, blocked please help

I recently registered an account in order to vote in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America

Unfortunately, I have been mistaken as a sock puppet by Guanaco, who blocked my IP and deleted my vote. I can assure you that this is my first and only account. Please do what you can to get me unblocked so I can vote as well as set up my user page to perhaps give me the credibility to avoid this kind of thing in the future. If you need it, my IP is 68.105.152.103. I already emailed Guanaco but have gotten no response.

Thank you.

While someone who created an account in order to vote certainly should not be counted as heavily as someone who has been an active participant, I don't believe there is any rule against someone doing this. I'm very unhappy that people have taken lately to deleting VFD votes they consider invalid. As far as I know, there is no rule against even anons participating in a VFD debate, they just don't get a vote. Sometimes (as recently in the debate over the Peter Weibel article) they know more than the rest of us. And blocking someone's account and IP over this seems way out of line.

There is no comment at the user's page, the user's talk page, the IP's page, or the IP's talk page explaining the block, nor can I find anything searching on the username or the IP, so I will unblock. -- Jmabel 04:49, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The edit history looks suspicious, but he is a real member of GNAA. silsor 05:07, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much -- GNAA Popeye 05:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Two things I'd like to point out even though I'm anon: We just discussed this issue four months ago (see previous vfd discussion on GNAA). Also, yes the GNAA offends and frustrates people. Since when is this a reason to delete an article? If it is, why don't we list Al_Qaeda, Hamas, RIAA, Howard_Stern, or for that matter George W. Bush? As long as GNAA is notable enough to have an article, why delete it? 63.201.89.211 19:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • In answer to your first point when this page was listed here in May consensus one way or the other was not reached; it is not uncommon for pages to reappear here occasionally in those circumstances though it is certainly the exception rather than the rule. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Agreed with 63.201.89.211.
  • Merge the most essential points into Slashdot trolling phenomenon and then keep as a redirect thereto. We don't need a separate Wikipedia article for every transient trolling phenomenon; they're simply not important enough, and moreover the attention just encourages them. Psychonaut 16:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: While most are not notable, this one is. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=6183013"