Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (4th nomination)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kaal (talk | contribs) at 05:48, 9 July 2005 (→Delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gay Nigger Association of America

Note: I will not be voting, merely administering this vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

The GNAA site is seen by many as not notable, and not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. There have been numerous VfDs submitted, however each one has had irregularities. In a final effort to put the whole thing to rest, I am submitting this article to VfD one last time. I am dividing up the page into 5 sections: Delete, Keep, Redirect, Comments and Discounted votes. Usually we do not place these into sections due to limitations of VfD, however an exception will be made for this article, mainly due to its controversial nature.

No sock-puppets, anonymous users or very new users will have their votes counted in this VfD. To reduce administrative overhead, if you had less than 100 edits as of the time you submit your vote then your vote will not be counted. This is to stop people from gaming the system and to stop sock puppets from voting. Further, comments that are seen to be personal attacks will be deleted immediately by any admin not participating in the vote.

One last comment. VfD is decided by consensus to delete. The vote is not counted by a straight 50/50 split, where the side who gets greater than 50% of the vote "wins" (I shudder at this term). Deletion will only occur if there are around 70% of the votes to delete.

Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

Delete/Keep/Redirect tally (30/47/2)

Delete

  1. Not encyclopedic. Vanity/promo. Never belonged on Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
  2. Delete They revel in their badness, but it does not render them more notable. Denni☯ 2005 July 8 03:53 (UTC)
  3. Not encyclopedic; very narrow notability, if any; troll vanity. Wikiepedia is not desperate enough for material to justify their inclusion. --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
  4. Not encyclopedic, troll vanity. P.S. You have no authority to discount votes, but in case it matters to someone, I only switched from Alex12_3 a day or two ago, hence the low edit count on this account. --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
    I do. I am an administrator not taking part in the vote. If you have a concern about this, please take it to WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
    Good enough for me, see edited comment. --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
    P.S. this user's vote is legitimate. Not to be discounted. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
  5. Delete. Slightly less notable than a Pokemon. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
  6. Delete. --Alterego July 8, 2005 04:10 (UTC)
  7. Delete Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 8 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
  8. Delete Internet vandalism does not make one notable. Wikipedia should not be abused to promote vandalism. --FOo 8 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
  9. Delete. Wikipedians have heard of them because they're here. That doesn't make them notable in the world at large. If being well-known on Wikipedia made something notable, we should have articles on User:RickK, User:Cecropia, User:Wik, and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I'm not suggesting anyone write those, by the way. Isomorphic 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
  10. Delete. Non-notable troll group. jni 8 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
  11. delete: Rules are often made simply as an excuse to make examples of those who break them; nevertheless, natural laws (immutable or not), dictating such things as 'do not feed the trolls', cannot simply be abandoned. Ombudsman 8 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)
  12. Delete. Who? (SEWilco 8 July 2005 08:08 (UTC))
  13. Delete —Sean κ. + 8 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
  14. Delete. Not notable. Let's get some perspective here. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
  15. Delete. Unnoteable. -- Arwel 8 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
  16. Delete. Some guy(s) (?) in a basement. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
  17. Delete. Their trolling as evidence of "notability" is equivalent to massive self-promotion. They're only remotely notable for their Apple computer gimmick; that information could be stored elsewhere. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  18. Delete or redirect to Feces - Trolls are not notable at all. --Phroziac (talk) 8 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
    personal attack by 208.180.177.33 removed
  19. Delete or cleanup. I don't think trolls deserve that much server space, if at all. --Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 8 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)
  20. Delete vanity, forum trivia CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  21. Delete as per Isomorphic. --Tabor 8 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
  22. Delete These people barely make an impact on Slashdot (where they are modded into oblivion) or in here (where they are reverted). They have made no lasting impact on anything. Either delete or merge with some article listing trolling groups. — Olathe 8 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
  23. Delete Eliot 8 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
  24. Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
  25. Delete. The page does not establish notability of this group. Vanity. The threshold for inclusion for computer and internet related issues, especially internet groups should be higher than for other pages, since (a) proponents of such pages are more likely to round up support on the web and (b) the self-selection of Wikipedia editors from internet circles inevitably leads to bias in favor of articles (Pokemon pages, GNAA etc.) which would never be considered encyclopedic if they discussed similar details in other fields. Martg76 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
  26. Delete. Not notable outside of Slashdot and a few other places trolls frequent. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
  27. Delete. The only reason they are of interest is because they are disruptive trolls. I know it won't be deleted, but that's just a sign of one of the key weaknesses of Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 9 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
    • One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that you can have a fair take on every human subject, even if it offends you, all under the same roof. Fuzheado | Talk 9 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. What I meant to say is that they are of interest only because they are trolling here for the purpose of calling attention to themselves. (Besides, encouraging destructive assholes is not necessarily in the best interest of Wikipedia.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 9 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)
        • Wish to point out that this is not correct: the GNAA are not just of interest because they are trolling Wikipedia. Firstly, considering their entire purpose for existence, the GNAA have been remarkably restrained when it comes to this site (I have seen what they do to other website). Though they have vandalised the odd article, they have mostly focussed their attention on the Gay Nigger Association of America article. The GNAA are notable because they faked OS X screenshots, have been a significant subculture on Slashdot, and have crapflooded, trolled and generally been malevolent on many websites and community forums. They also have their own IRC server, have a radio show (TrollTalk), a website, a crapflooding script and a growing user base. I don't like them, but they are notable for things other than what they do on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
          • Glad to at least clear things up that you are not biased. BTW, in what other case has having a website, an IRC server, or having written a script been considered notable? None. (And if they have a "radio show", it isn't even important enough to list in their own article.) If this were any other group other than these guys you seem to admire, you would laugh them right off of the site. I would not be having such a problem with this if it wasn't so blatently ridiculous and two-faced. - Marvin01 | talk 9 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
            • I do try. Would argue that all those things establishes that they are an organised group and that this helps to establish their notability. The fact that they are a well-know and organised group that performs trolling and crapflooding make them notable. This is disputed, and one of the reasons for the VfD. In fact, it was established in the previous 5 VfDs that this is a notable enough reason to keep the article, but something has always happened to make someone object. Do not wish to say any more as I am administering this vote and as such not actually voting. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
  28. Delete. Non-notable group of undistinguished malcontents. Fire Star 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
  29. Delete non notable promotion/advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
  30. Delete. It's quite amusing that some votes to keep use the fact that it's previously survived VfD as the primary, or sole, means of verifying its supposed notability. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 04:16 (UTC)
  31. Delete. Voting again delete. Non notable group outside a few blogs and even on them its not greatly notable.kaal 9 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

Keep

  1. An interesting phenomenon, non-notability notwithstanding. I'd say, keep.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 8, 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  2. A mildly irritating lot who puff themselves up to much more significance than they'll ever have, but they're notable enough for a Wikipedia article. — Dan | Talk 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  3. Precedent has been set. --Golbez July 8, 2005 03:57 (UTC)
  4. Annoying, but notable. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
  5. Keep so long as they change their name to reflect that their membership is not exclusively American.-gadfium 8 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
  6. Keep, highly notable, and precedent has been set... multiple times! 24.19.27.32 8 July 2005 03:59 (UTC) <--- This vote was by me, BTW. CAPS LOCK 8 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
    Vote is to be kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)
  7. Keep Notability as evidenced by IRC response to this VfD: "somebody listed GNAA for VfD? this isn't gonna be pretty" Clearly this article and the phenomenon that it represents is notable within Wikipedia... the question is: is meta-notability notable? I say yes. -Harmil 8 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)-
  8. Keep Peverse, bizarre, neo-fascistic, anti-social and in some areas illegal. A 50 person protest group which disrupts major media infrastructure (/.) is notable. Hell, we have articles on miniscule Trotskyite and Anarchist groups for the same reasons. Fifelfoo 8 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
  9. Keep A notable group known across the internet for being... themselves. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 8 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
  10. Strong Keep. as demonstrated by Google Search for "OSX x86 hoax".--TexasDex July 9, 2005 03:35 (UTC)
  11. Keep once again. --SPUI (talk) 8 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)
  12. Keep -If they are notorious, other web communities would want to know about them to be on the alert or protect themselves. So what if they just want attention. --Jondel 8 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)
  13. Keep - Notable enough, even if it is unfortunate. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
  14. Keep - As a widespread Internet phenomenon, GNAA has a better claim to notability than any of the squillions of schools that are routinely kept. Like, say, Barret Traditional Middle School. There's no Wikipedia:GNAAwatch, though. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
    Yes, and as a school, Barret Traditional Middle School has a better claim to notability that the GNAA. Not sure this is a valid comparison. Your vote is valid, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)
    Regrammarized ;) --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)
  15. Keep - Weird stuff, but we have a page for NAMBLA so why not GNAA? Redwolf24 8 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
  16. I do hope this is the last time! Keep. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)
  17. 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. —shoecream July 8, 2005 05:58 (UTC)
  18. Keep for third time (from me), notable troll organization. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)
  19. Keep - Relevant, I've personally looked this page up to see what the deal with GNAA is. StuartH 8 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)
    Apologies to StuartH, I misread Kate's tool. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)
  20. I really wish I could vote otherwise, but Keep, as I cannot honestly call them non-notable. Xoloz 8 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
  21. Keep. See you next month for a new VfD! Sam Hocevar 8 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
  22. Keep - I object to the way this vote is being run. I'm an administrator too - doesn't give me the right to change the rules either. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
  23. Keep as notable internet phenomenon. Can we please settle this once and for all. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)
  24. Keep. It's amazing how everyone is talking about this "non notable" group. I don't like em, but will NEVER vote to censor them. Moriori July 8, 2005 09:09 (UTC)
    • Nobody is censoring anybody. This is not a forum for public speech. Are you saying that no topics should be excluded at all? -- Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
  25. Keep purely on principle that I don't like the arbitrary restructuring of VfD rules. Proto t c 8 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)
  26. keep Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)
  27. Keep, articles like this are what makes Wikipedia interesting. -- grm_wnr Esc 8 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)
  28. Keep, again. ElBenevolente 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
  29. Strong keep: Fairly notable, if only for their role in disseminating Gay Niggers from Outer Space. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)
  30. Keep, although I am no longer an active member. Goat-see 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
    Admin decision: vote to be kept, has more than 100 edits. Won't penalise this editor because they no longer actively contribute. Despite the username, Goat-see has reverted vandalism on at least one occasion, this shows that they are editing constructively. They have contributed to other articles: I can see a copyedit on Incompatible Timesharing System, and they have actually edited Gay Nigger Association of America. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
  31. Keep, notable. --Lysol July 8, 2005 17:01 (UTC)
  32. Strong keep: Notable. Trolling along with goatse is a cultural phenomenon induced be the feeling on anonymity of large groups of people on the internet, allowing them to freely express what they couldn't around their peers in real life. Incognito 8 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
    • Then there should be an article about that phenomenon, not individual articles based on every single incident. - Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
  33. Keep. It could easily be established that a reasonable number of people care about the subject. (since you tend to care when you're annoyed.) If you think the article is self-promoting, edit it or clean it up or something, but don't delete it just because you happen to dislike what it's about. Maadio 8 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
    Admin decision: I am going to allow this vote. Suggest that Maadio create a user page to remove the red link in his signature. When I checked Maadio's edit count, this vote was his 100th edit on Wikipedia. User shows good faith edits, however, and so this is the reason I am counting the vote. Had Maadio had any less edits, however, I would not have counted this. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
  34. Keep. I don't agree with what they do, but when I started reading Slashdot, I was highly confused at all the references, and the Wikipedia article was handy in explaining the phenomenon. -Fuzzy 8 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
  35. Keep. Six VfDs is utterly absurd. After 2 or 3 attempts it's time to let go. We shouldn't relist something every six months when some random editor gets a bee in his bonnet about it. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
  36. Strong speedy Keep Because it has survived 5 vfd's already and this is just stupid. . I will complain about abuse of admin powers if this is deleted. Falphin 8 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
  37. Keep. We all hate the GNAA, but they exist, and therefore need an article. Nadavspi | talk 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
  38. Keep for god's sake. What has VfDing this article ever accomplished? Ghost Freeman | Talk 8 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
  39. Keep. GNAA is hated, but Wikipedia article is handy in explaining the phenomenon, and therefore we need the article. As stated earlier. Feydey 8 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
  40. Keep. The name is awful, but they've raised enough hell to be clearly notable. We can't change reality to suit our tastes. Leave it up. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
  41. Keep. Notable, unfortunately. --Tothebarricades July 8, 2005 22:41 (UTC)
  42. Keep. Meets notability threshold. Interesting read. Somebody wanting to know more about them would succeed if they came to Wikipedia. That's the point of Wikipedia, is it not? Tobycat 8 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
  43. Ub3r keep. Ketsuban (is 1337) 8 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
  44. Keep. Notable enough, and interesting cultural phenomenon. - Naive cynic 9 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
  45. Keep Paraphrasing - I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it. Voltaire, I believe. I may disagree with the organization, but I also disagree with the KKK, but they are noteworthy enough for an article. Even if it was isolated to Slashdot, I would still say keep it. It's informative. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 9 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)
  46. Mild keep. If it was under another name it wouldn't be under VfD (imho). Needs a big rewrite though to stop it from being a vanity piece. Don't subscribe to not-notable theory. Who's ever heard of half the "random page" clicks? -- Tomhab 9 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
  47. Strong Keep. Where else is there reliable and relatively unbiased information on the GNAA? I notice this is getting a whole lot of votes for a 'non-notable' subject. Also see Google Search for "OSX x86 hoax"--TexasDex July 9, 2005 03:35 (UTC)
  48. Keep -- ditto Fernando Rizo and TexasDex. ♥Purplefeltangel 9 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

Redirect

  1. Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena; their notability does not extend beyond that realm. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    comment - very wrong - http://media.gnauk.co.uk/aots-gnaa.mpg television anyone? gnaa have also caused many websites (particularly the blog type) to adopt some kind of captcha, 4chan, movabletype, kuro5hin, the list goes on
    The GNAUK? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
  2. Redirect as above. -R. fiend 8 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Comments

  • I need to look at the sources some more, since some of them either do not say what they really are or they do not work. Some of the Slashdot Something Awful links did not work, since I do not have membership to the website. I will try to fix up the sources so I can see how much it is true deal or much of it just promo. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  • The only "precedent" that has been set is that there's no consensus on whether this should be in Wikipedia or not. -- Cyrius|✎ 8 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)
    • I voted last time delete, because in my view, I do not think they are notable. Now, I am trying to see how famous these guys even are. That is why I am doing the source check. Also, for those who can read French, I would look at fr:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America and see how they managed to pull the article off. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
      • The article exists on the French Wikipedia because I translated it (and a few other contributors fixed it). As for why it is still here, it's probably because no one there ever imagined it was not a suitable article. But in fact I think the main reason is that the GNAA has never been disrupting the French Wikipedia (TTBOMK; we have had Autofellatio attacks but I don't know if they were from the GNAA), hence no one VfDed the article as an attempt to retaliate over the GNAA. Sam Hocevar 8 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)
  • I have no axe to grind here :: for what it'sworth, the criteria I would apply are 1)Does it exist ? If so 2)Will someone want to look it up ? If so keep the title, and then 3)Is the present text a basis for an informative and NPOV article ? If so keep the lot and let it develop. --Simon Cursitor 8 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
    • I do agree that it should be cleaned up to show what are facts and what are hoaxes. Who knows, maybe after a while, we can see how the article turns out. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)
    • Though I am administering this vote, I can answer your questions briefly: 1) They exist (I have talked to them on their IRC server/channel; 2) StuartH has stated he has checked the article to find out who they are; and 3) The present text has been looked over with a fine tooth comb by many parties. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Deletion policy is considered official policy on Wikipedia and no article deserves deviation from this policy without prior consensus to change the policy. This VfD is in extremely bad faith and should be disregarded outright. - Thatdog 8 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. Was not placed here in bad faith. I actively campaigned against this being on VfD, however Tony Sideaway pointed out problems with the past VfD (was supposed to end all this). I am putting it forward again, this time with tight and focussed rules, administered with an iron hand. This will the definitive VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)
      • That's okay Ta bu shi da yu, when gnaa keeps their article this time, you can get someone to bring it up again due to the rule breaking you brought on this vfd. Adamn 8 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
        • Have made an extensive response to accusations of irregularities on the talk page of this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
  • For those claiming that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, please peruse this page:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and particularly this section here: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, because there is actually nothing that I can find which even remotely suggests that an article like this is innappropriate for Wikipedia (considering that it is not a hoax, clearly not a vanity page, blatantly not an innaproriate user page, definitely not advertising or other spam, and patently not original research [disclaimer:there is a chance that I may be mistaken]). See: Problems that may require deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#What_to_do_with_a_problem_page.2Fimage.2Fcategory. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
If anything at all, it could be said to be non-notable, but otherwise the information is suitable for Wikipedia, and the article is in very good form. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)
I dont see anyone claiming that the article is inappropriate (other than a somewhat casual attitute to fact checking and source citing). The claim is that the subject is not notable.
As for a WP policy, how about this: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable"
I would add, "Not even those with (allegedly) 30 to 40 members" -- Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
I must have ben slightly mistaken in that only a minority saw it to be innapropriate. And thanks for the link, but I suppose that the vital word in that sentence in generally, and probably the essense of this argument. Seeaxid 9 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
  • Read the article with interest.--Bhadani 8 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
  • Isn't this VfD a little premature with attempt #5 still not yet closed? siafu 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is an abuse of the vfd process, you cannot just change the rules for articles you have so far failed to get rid of. Adamn 8 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
    • The rules haven't been changed. Suspected sockpuppet votes are usually ignored anyway. The only thing different here is that they are being forwarned. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 8 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
  • Comment - anonymous votes should only be discounted if bad faith can be proved. I don't like this precedent. Proto t c 8 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
    • A fair amount of leeway may be had by administrators. We have set the rules up front for this VfD (our 6th) so everyone knows what is expected and how it being administered. This is not a precedent, this happens on a case by case basis and this vote is out of the ordinary. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
  • Even if, which I do not for a moment believe, the GNAA page or a large part of it were deleted, then the GNAA Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the GNAA Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the Gay Niggers from Outer Space, with all their power and might, step forth to the rescue and the liberation of the world. - Dr. Pigger H. Juegasser
  1. Just because it happens online does not mean it is important. Just because it happens on SlashDot does not make it important. Google hit counts are strongly inflated for this stuff. Nobody is talking about this offline.
  2. Anybody can make webpages or flood weblogs and chat rooms. It is easy to make a nuisance of yourself online to a lot of people at once. Lacking the decency not to does NOT make you notable. Trolling does not make you notable. Not even if you and your buds think you are really good at it.
  3. "[GNAA] was rumored to be mentioned on CNN" Is this really the level of reporting that you want to have in your encyclopedia? Do you think WP could ever be taken seriously with this content included?
  4. "Interesting phenomenon"? Are you kidding? Two or three of these kiddies spring up every week. There is nothing interesting, unique, or even mildly surprising about a group of annoying teenagers or college dorks.
  5. "Precedent has been set"? So what. Unset it. Get rid of all of this crap. Make a WP:AYBABTU rule or something. If you are not bigger than AYBABTU, you don’t get in. Forget it. Or go troll some more message boards and hold your breath for that CNN story.
    This goes for all the rest of you wacky guys out there with your hilarious new meme or your l33t hax0r ski||z. Nobody cares. Seriously.
    I am sorry that I do not have enough edits to count in this vote. I would welcome a discussion over my opinions anyway. - Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
    Have moved from discounted votes to comments. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Also see Google Search for "OSX x86 hoax"

Hate to burst someone's bubble, but I noticed 32 unique entries out of those 5000 websites when I clicked on the link. Some of the links did not display the words GNAA at all in their summary. I noticed many blogs/websites tend to report the same thing over and over again, so use caution (no wonder I see some people dismissing the use of the Google test for some VFD's). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Discounted votes

Only to be added to by administrators. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

Discounted Keep
  1. keep. notable, informative, etc. --Timecop 8 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
    Why is this vote discounted? Sure he's biased, but he's got over 100 legitimate edits! CAPS LOCK 8 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
    He does not. See Kate's tool and his Special:Contributions/Timecop. At the time of this edit, he had 56 edits. The first started on this VfD. Vote remains discounted. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)
    P.S. please note this is nothing personal, and the editor may or may not be a good editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  2. Keep -Results 51 - 60 of about 56,900 for gay nigger association of america. (0.07 seconds) This is on Google. (added by 62.252.160.5)
    Reasoning: it is not possible to know how many votes an anonymous editor has made. Discounting solely for this reason. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
    Looks to be about 40. Then again, dynamic IPs and all that... --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
    How do we know that this anonymous editor didn't also edit from another IP address? Impossible to tell, so discounting all anonymous votes in this particular VfD. Please note that this is not necessarily the practice in other VfDs, however to maintain acccountability and to be seen to have everything above board I will be administering the vote in this fashion. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
  3. Keep. The dominant reason in the delete box, is that 'we shouldn't promote trolls', or essentially it seems, an indignation over the group, which IMO, is unjustified as we are a neutral wikipedia, and this isn't in the 'wikipedia' namespace. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)
    Reasoning: This user has 31 edits. Inelligible for voting. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)
    I crossed out my vote and noted this there, but it seems someone undid that for some reason. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
  4. Keep. Beyond notable and bordering on omnipotent. thelark
    Reasoning: This user has 4 edits. Inelligible for voting. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
  5. Keep. past precedents have proved this is a waste of time. merely not hearing of them is not grounds for non notability Adamn 8 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
    Reasoning: used has 21 edits according to Kate's tool. Inelligible to vote on this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
  6. Strong Keep. 6th VfD! 6th! You'd think the 2nd time around, people would get a clue! I'm feeling like I need to introduce Wikipedia: Get a clue, damn it!. GNAA is an entity within Slashdot, it exists seperate from CowboyNeal's pants, let it have it's own article. Is it taking up space? here, i'll donate 30GB, if it does... You'd almost think there's a cabal against this article...
    Can I help write it? Ghost Freeman | Talk 8 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
    Reasoning: vote was unsigned. All editors must sign votes. If the editor wishes to resubmit this, they must sign it. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
  7. Keep. Wow. Again. Ok, I say keep for two main reasons. 1) this was VfD'ed all of a few weeks ago. This is also its 6th VfD, and its managed to survive all of them. Shouldn't that be a hint that the article should stay? 2) It's proven that this is not *just* a bunch of /. trolls, this is a seperate entity that has gained fame for other things (the leaked Tiger screenshots for example). Thus it is encyclopedic. NeoThermic 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
    Reasoning: NeoThermic has 41 edits according to Kate's tool. Rules are clear: he/she is inelligible to vote in this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
    I actually expected this, seeing as I don't have many edits. But I've been here for a long time, and its not like I've made 49 quick edits just to vote here. My first edit in this account (I used to edit anon for a while) was 22 November 2004. So please don't treat my vote as if it doesn't matter. Evidently I have a voice, and I wish to express it as I see fit. Finally, if you can provide me with a link to indicate that one shouldn't partake in a VfD until x amount of posts, then I'll agree that my vote can waste away here. But as Proto stated in his comment, votes shoudn't really be discounted unless you can *prove* Bad Faith. NeoThermic 9 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
    Because of the nature of this vote, it is not what I would class as an ordinary VfD. Our voting criteria for an article that has been submitted six times is now a lot stricter. This has been necessary, if unfortunately so, because IMHO there has been considerable bad faith edits on both sides (keep and delete). Keep because they refuse to accept the vote after 5 times, and delete because of sock puppets and harassment. I am running this vote with some very clear, set rules. Regrettably, any user who is very new might be deemed to be a ring-in of either camp or perhaps a sock-puppet of an existing member. Thus, I must discount votes of all people who have had less than 100 edits. I'm sorry that this includes you, but I can't show you any favour on this. If you would like, it is perfectly valid for you to add a comment to the #Comments section. I would also suggest you refer to Theresa Knott's comment above. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
    I just feel that concentrating on just edits is a bit, lacking any better words at 4:50am, shallow. Shy wikipedians (those who have few edits, but have been here for a while) have opinions, and they shouldn't be squashed due to their shyness to edit articles. I'm (very) sure that discounting my vote isn't personal, since you've outlined a simple policy, but it has to be said, this is its sixth VfD, its survived (possibly with conterversy) them all so far. I just felt that, despite my lack of editcount, that my time registerd here would hold more weight, allowing me to have a say in ending this (increasing) set of VfD's :) NeoThermic 9 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
Discounted Delete
  1. Strong Delete - No No No. So many reasons, must enumerate...
    user only has 15 edits. As by VFD, this vote does not count. 8 July 2005 11:57 (JST)
  2. Delete Pretty gay use of server space--Pyrobob 8 July 2005 14:30 (EST)
    Homophobia is no reason for deletion, I ask for this vote to be ignored. unsigned comment by 83.131.28.161, personal attack removed
    When I checked, Pyrobob has 74 edits. Inelligible for voting. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
  3. Delete I'm commenting even though my entry should be discounted (not enough edits). GNAA is self-promotion, nothing more. To treat them as notable is to help them in their quest to be notable. Alternate 8 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
    Reasoning: Alternate has 4 edits according to Kate's tool. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
  4. Delete. Vanity article, trivial at best. My comment will probably be discounted, as I only have about 50 edits, but I think this is a poor measure of a "very new user." Dayv 8 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
    Reasoning: nothing personal against Dayv, but according to Kate's tool he has 64 edits, as of my moving of this vote. Dayv's vote is not elligible in this VfD. Special comment to Dayv: we have to set the cutoff mark somewhere, 100 edits is the general rule for sockpuppet checks. Editors who participate in this VfD must show that they have been working here for a while with at least 100 edits under their belt. There is nothing personal in my moving of your vote, but I must show neither fear nor favour in my administration of this VfD. I do encourage you to continue to participate in Wikipedia, and also note that there is nothing to stop you from adding a comment to the #Comments section. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_(4th_nomination)&oldid=18447924"