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 Zarxrax (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 29 September 2004 (→Keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gay Nigger Association of America

Attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America is now the 3rd google result (after the GNAA homepage and troll repository) for a search of "GNAA" or "gay nigger". Just an interesting tidbit. GNAA Popeye 23:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which also means if this article gets deleted there will be no visible alternative viewpoints to those espoused on the GNAA's website. lol

Not sure when this was last up for deletion. Hope we can make another try and have it removed. POV, Not notable, not encyclopedic, vanity. --Improv 06:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Info: A search of Google groups reveals only 9 uses of the group's name. A search of Google web reveals only 71 references to the group's name. Wolfman 03:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman is misleading people again; Google for "GNAA" and "Gay Nigger Association of America" They return 1,970 and 116 matches, respectively. GNAA Popeye 03:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The information is just *not pertinent*. Who cares? If I wanted to know numbers, I would type terms into google myself. You listed your "proof" of non-notabilty on the VfD page, your complaint has been heard. The information just doesn't belong on the entry itself. Shall I search google for Wolfman and put the number of results on your userpage? See how silly this could get? Goat-see 03:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, HERE is the link to my Google search; 71 distinct hits returned. Wolfman 03:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That returned 351 matches for me. GNAA Popeye 03:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, I said distinct matches. Google sayeth In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 71 already displayed. Wolfman 03:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wrong. They can still be distinct and very similar. In any case, the results you post are highly misleading, since most people count the matches Google displays up-front. GNAA Popeye 03:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note: A related policy vote is now being held at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Proposed_new_rule:_No_repeat_submission_of_articles.

  • Just curious, but how can you compare a small organization with 40 members that is hardly known outside of /. to the KKK with hoards of members and a long history and involvement in American political corruption and the like, or to the Holocaust, which involved the brutal deaths of millions of unarmed civilians based on their religion/race/sexual preference/etc alone? We have deleted articles before on organizations that had more than 60 members. Come back in 50 years when you have overseen an ethnic cleansing, when you have been at the front of a political scandal, when you have turned into a well-known music group, or when you have been brutally murdered for teh sole reason that you are members of a stupid troll organization.
  • Also, could you please stop harassing people for just voting delete? If you continue to do that, that opens the door for people on the otehr side to start flamewars with people voting to keep this article, and this will descend into chaos. oh wait, it already has!
  • One more thing: PLEASE quit inviting GNAA members and sympathizers to join Wikipedia for the sole purpose of voting here. Don't use sockpuppets, either. This is getting really annoying. This is what happens when you mix /. with wikipedia... *sigh* ---Node 04:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Keep: It's a part of the Internet Culture, and an interesting manifestation of trolling. Trying to remove it is akin to censorship - why should any encyclopedia, especially an open one like Wikipedia, have to censor the information that it puts up? --Metlin
  2. Keep. I think a simple test is the curiosity test, that is "Would anyone ever want to learn some encyclopaedic information concerning the topic ("Gay Nigger Association of America")?" The answer is largely yes, I believe. It is irresponsible to delete articles with utility. And I'd like to really rail against the kind of thing that happens increasingly too often on VfD. Some people when they see some mistructure or content they don't like as a page that fairly should exist as an article, rather than actually constructively helping us by submitting their edits and working on the encyclopaedia, submit it to VfD. If it's broken, fix it. Delete only if it's unfixable-- that is, it is not appropriate for the very article itself, even as far as just the notion of documenting it by title, to exist. As an internet user I had heard of these idiots before, and this page helped me-- I learned a little interesting information from it. Stop burning that information. Utility is king. DG 21:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I would say that the very article itself is inappropriate because the topic is not notable. Do you feel that anything that might concievably be of interest to anyone should be on here? There is a web outside of wikipedia for nonencyclopedic things. --Improv 19:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Here come the trolls. Anyway, I vote to keep it, but clean up the article. I think they're a bunch of idiots with too much time on their hands, but they have influenced high-traffic websites such as Slashdot and 4chan. --Slowking Man 06:56, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    The fact that these people are wasting everyone's time by putting this up for deletion again makes you wonder who the real trolls are today. GNAA Popeye 14:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Keep. Christ. This was last up for deletion less than 3 weeks ago. Read the talk page for crying out loud. "It will not be relisted, once something passes VFD it does not go there again, unless the grounds on which it was voted for have changed, which they have not - the page stays." Goat-see 07:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I can see nowhere in the Wikipedia policies where the above is stated. It was unfortunate for that promise to have been made, but it is not, as far as I can see, policy, and we should not feel bound by it. --Improv 08:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Looking at the Deletion policy, I don't even see what the article violated other than the fact that you disagreed with it. The entry as it survived the most recent VfD was not considered to be non-pov or vanity, and either not knowing this by lack of research, or worse, knowing this and listing it anyway, you hoped to get it deleted again. Goat-see 08:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Actually, I looked at the article's history, saw no evidence of a VfD, and only when I was already in the process of listing it did I notice there was already a subpage for its VfD. So no, I didn't list it anyhow, but I certainly was pleased to see that someone had the judgement to propose it in the past, and hope that this time it will be deleted. It's not a unknown thing, for an article to fail VfD once, and then be deleted on a later run. Let the process do its job. It's not that I disagree with the factual content of the article -- I simply don't think it's notable, and do think that it's vanity. If it survives VfD then I might put some effort into keeping it NPOV, partly because I get the impression that some people think they own the article. However, it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia for reasons I mentioned, so I hope it goes. Oh, and Goat-see, if you sign your posts, things will be easier to read. Thanks. --Improv 08:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    It survived VfD twice in this incarnation. You also obviously listed it without so much as a a glance at the talk page. There's links on there to both of the VfD events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:VfD-GNAA and the history of this one. I have a feeling that this time, it's going to survive, like in the past. Like User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason mentioned on the talk page, it's a dangerous precedent to get articles deleted by adding them to VfD repeatedly. Goat-see 08:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Keep, why is this even up for deletion again? This is an absurd use of VfD and a waste of time. EDIT: Wanted to add a bit of resoning for keeping. The GNAA affects the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of people, and has influenced and revolutionized the very concept of trolling. While I'm no fan of feeding the trolls, and am not a troll myself, there is no question to their notability. They are certainly on order with Kibo, whom we have an article about. —siroχo 08:08, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Hundreds of thousands of people? Why are there so few google hits? When it comes to slashdot, I've been around longer than most (username Improv, userid 2467), and I've never heard of these people. They're simply not notable, and have affected very few people. This debate is probably the most exposure they've ever had, with their wikipedia article the second most. --Improv 19:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Keep - GNAA is part of the Internet troll folklore and I would hate to see this entry disappear. People with so much time on their hands that they can blatantly abuse the VfD process should spend it in more productive ways. --Sam Hocevar 09:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Keep: Even if i personally think that these people are a bunch of childish idiots, and even though the current article is ill written crap it is still a valid subject we should have an article on. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:07, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
  8. Keep. I disagree with this article's ideas, but understand its significance. Can we rule to make this is the last time it goes on VfD for at least the next year? It's ridiculous. -- user:zanimum
    The only reason I can come up with for re-listing something on VfD is so that new editors who weren't around previously may have a look at the issue in question. In which case, there should be a reasonable time limit between listings. Neutral. Fire Star 12:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Keep. Nothing has changed since the last time that this article was found to be npov and non-vanity. Repeatedly adding it to vfd in hopes of eventually getting it deleted should be against wikipedia policy (if it is not already) -- Dv 13:52, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
  10. Keep. The GNAA is a real organization with ~40 members. You are welcome to visit us any time on our IRC network. (irc.gnaa.us) It bears repeating again, but this is not a vanity page; futhermore, as many people have already pointed out, this has already gone through the VfD several times and the consensus was keep each time. I am lead to believe that the people who keep pushing for its deletion aren't concerned with its "encyclopediac" value at all and simply have an anti-GNAA chip on their shoulders.GNAA Popeye 14:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    40? so? A load of entries for clubs at a US univeristy were deleted for being insignifcant. Some of them probably had more than 40 memebers Geni 15:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Can you provide a link to the VfDs of these deleted articles? Thanks. GNAA Popeye 15:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Search for Dartmouth for example (in the VfD pages). 40 members definitely doesn't make you notable, but the actions of those 40 members may. many terrorist groups have had fewer members than 40 and are still notable. On the other hand, a student fraternity with 40 members probably isn't. — David Remahl 15:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Note: none of the Dartmouth college fraternity pages were deleted, they were all merged into one. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    But their individual articles were deleted. Even if Gay Nigger Association of America is deleted, there will at least be mention of it on troll organization or something like that. — David Remahl 16:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Group member, questionable validity --Improv 16:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Keep. I could not be farther from being a member of GNAA, but the article should not be deleted. It should be rewritten, perhaps to one or two paragraphs, but not deleted. Spend your time working to bring the article to an acceptable standard instead of VfDing it repeatedly. — David Remahl 14:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. Keep. This is a blatant abuse of VfD. --dylain 15:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Keep, and quit bloody listing it already. You're just drawing attention to them (which is what they want). Of borderline interested to other sociopathic college kids with no social life. Leave it to its backwater. GWO 15:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I applaud your vote, but your characterization of people who would find GNAA interesting is your opinion only, and a stereotypical one at that. GNAA Popeye 15:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    As is your blanket characterization of something as complicated and multifarious as Christianity as extremely offensive. Those who live in glass ideologies... Fire Star 20:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I don't care how complicated the various sects of Christianity are, I still am offended by it. Any philosophical system based on faith is intellecually abhorrent to me, as is any religion that threatens people with eternal damnation if they don't conform. Faith, original sin and hell are core concepts of Christianity, and people who profess to be Christian while not adhering to these principles are really just non-Christians who enjoy the social benefits being a Christian provides. GNAA Popeye 20:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    While I'm not here to argue specifics (I agree that most orthodox Christianity is politically motivated), I'd like to point out that what you've just said relies on stereotype. You criticize all of Christianity as offensive for the beliefs of their majority. Yet, you can criticize GWO for indulging in stereotyping? Your position is intellectually unconvincing. Fire Star
    No, it doesn't. It's not stereotyping to call all squares four-cornered polygons. There are certain concepts that are core to all forms of Christianity. It is dishonest to suggest that someone can be a Christian and not accept concepts like faith and original sin, because they are clearly mentioned in the Bible. As I said before, most "Christians" are not really Christians at all, but closet deists or atheists who would rather avoid that designation. GNAA Popeye 22:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Bull dearie. Christianity existed before the Bible was compiled, and there do exist Christian groups that feel the Bible isn't inerrant -- the Mormons for example. I'm openly agnostic-leaning-to-atheist myself ofcourse, but that doesn't mean I have to think something as ignorant as "All christians believe in the Bible's innerancy". "Christian" is nothing more than a shorthand for all those who consider Jesus Christ to be their chief revelator of capital-T Truth. Nothing else. Aris Katsaris 19:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge. It is stereotyping to call all four-cornered polygons "squares". (After all, some of them may well be very hip cats.) --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 18:46, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
    Quite so. There are at least a few devout followers of Moses and Jesus who acknowledge the validity of the documentary hypothesis and think the xenophobes Ezra and Nehemiah (as well as the xenophile Paul) were out of their tiny little minds. Polygons aren't people... Fire Star 20:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Keep. You may not like it, but it's notable. I don't like it, but it's notable. If you're deleting this, we may as well delete Nazi and Hitler and Death and Shit and Anal sex and fuck and genocide. --MAdaXe 15:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Thank you for your vote. It's not standing up for those we agree with that builds character, it's standing up for those we disagree with. GNAA Popeye 15:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Hmm. Death, nazism and various words for sexual activities are a _bit_ more notable than GNAA. The comparison is plain silly. — David Remahl 15:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    They appear to be as offensive, which seems to be 90% of the complaints from the crowd. offensive article this, racism that, but when faced with other offensive articles like fuck, cunt, and the likes, all discussion on the offensiveness appears to stop and head back to "vanity entry", when I'm trying to keep the article with a NPOV. You saw how well that worked out with silentcrs's vandalism. Also, isn't having the same article listed on VfD 3 times a bit silly? Goat-see 16:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I don't think many people suggest deleting the article because it is offensive. Offensiveness is not a criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia, and I believe most of the editors know that. — David Remahl 16:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I think he was referring to the percieved offensiveness of the organization with that comment rather than the notoriety. The notoriety of the GNAA is indesputible; they are definitely as noteworthy as the hundreds of Scifi book articles floating around wikipedia. A large percentage of the slashdot crowd knows about them; they were responsible for the heavily publicised OS X 10.4 sreenshot leak on Macrumors and other websites; they have their own weekly radio show; they trolled AOL tech support so much that they were forced to change their "Secret question" policy; and they have done many other things of interest. Above all, though, they exist. GNAA Popeye 16:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. Keep: relisting this is just getting plain silly. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 16:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. Keep. The article, while controversial, has already gone through the VfD process (twice if I recall correctly). Consensus was to keep. Repeat submission of articles that have already gone through the VfD process stikes me as highly inappropriate, even as trolling (yes, I can see the irony in that). Ropers 16:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Actually there wasn't any consensus either way. The default is to keep. — David Remahl 16:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. Keep. Probably needs to be cleaned up and made less PoV, but it's a good part of internet culture. --Lysol 17:49, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Group member, validity questionable --Improv 16:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. Keep. Stop trying to bowdlerize Wikipedia. --Yath 20:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. Keep - wasn't this just on VFD? Shouldn't there be a limit to how frequently people can list the same article? Intrigue 21:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    See proposed policy change for discussion on that topic. Goat-see 21:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  20. Keep - This is absolutely insane that moderators wage a vendetta against this organization. The Wikipedia has documented shock sites such as Goatse.cx very heavily, and a gaping male anus offends me. If the Gay Nigger Association of America offends you, why is there any reason to keep other offensive material. The GNAA is responsible for Last Measure, which is also documented almost as heavily as Goatse. Can we justify how can we justify keeping something as long, thoughtful, and well written as goatse? Is there really a reason to take this down besides that it may be considered offensive to some user? Anything is offensive to someone, even lovely classical music (Beethoven wasn't an athiest and composed accordingly) or people practicing their faith peacefully. Ich 23:28, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Keep - notable troll group. ElBenevolente 23:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  22. A cautious keep from me, but it is only cautious because I'm not sure of its notability... wikipedia shouldn't step away from this because of its content, and it has been neutrally written. StuartH 03:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Wolfman keeps vandalizing the GNAA article, in addition to removing the vfd tag, apparently so people won't know it's up for deletion and come vote here. This is disruptive to the process and I request it halt at once. Thank you. GNAA Popeye 03:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Ridiculous. Go away you pathetic loser. Wolfman 03:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Anyone is welcome to look at the GNAA rv history. They will clearly see that Wolfman has repeatedly vandalized and removed the vfd from the article. That is a fact GNAA Popeye 03:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Keep the flames to user pages. I agree with the edit that Chmod007 made, and have reverted it appropriately. Popeye, knock it off.Goat-see 03:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Flames are to be NOWHERE on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Wikiquette WhisperToMe 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. Goat-see, you must have me confused with Wolfman or someone else. I haven't made any chanes to the GNAA article except to remove some PoV and superfluous information about Gayniggers From Outer Space, as that can be found in the GNFOS article GNAA Popeye 03:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    In addition, I vehemently disagree with the edits made by Wolfman - USENET is not the only place GNAA exists. Number of results on Google Groups does not make an organization less/more notable. His edits are POV. Goat-see 03:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Also, included Google web (71 hits, many to wiki clones) & only 9 on Google groups. How is this infor POV? I stated facts, but did not draw the obvious conclusion.Wolfman 03:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    The reason it's PoV is because there is no encyclopedic value to the number of Google hits a query for "GNAA" returns.
  2. Keep - This is a niche article but has value nonetheless. Wikipedia sees fit to document the minutia of many other marginal subjects, there's no reason to make an exception here. Bk0 05:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Keep and ban the trolls who keep listing it (only half joking ;) ). Mark Richards 06:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Keep. This is mildly notable and has already survived VfD before. Why is it being nominated again? Just because somebody has a grudge? Disgusting. Modargo 16:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Actually, no. I didn't notice it had been put to VfD until I already had it partway listed already. No grudge, I just think it's not a topic worthy of Wikipedia. --Improv 20:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Keep it. Intrigue 19:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Keep and make VfD/GNAA pages candidates for speedy deletion. Guanaco 20:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Keep, of course. This is Internet culture. Rhobite 00:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Keep - The people wanting it deleted seem to be doing so on grounds that it's a vanity page. Well, I just looked over what constitutes a vanity page, and I don't see how anyone could honestly classify the GNAA as one. It is also specifically stated: "A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because it may have been authored by its subject, or because the subject is unfamous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be ignored in deletion debates." It goes on to say that about the only reason a vanity page should be deleted is because it is uninteresting. Well the GNAA page is far from uninteresting! They are a well-known group (pretty much all of my friends have heard of them, and no, I'm not affiliated with their group), they have some note-worthy accomplishments that have had a definate impact on the internet. The article itself is well-written and conatains nothing but facts. I honestly don't see how anyone could vote to delete this, in good faith. User:Zarxrax 09:18, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Do not allow homophobic racists control content!

Delete

  1. Delete. If we get rid of it this time, then we won't have to again. Ambi 06:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    You must be naive. Going through VfD twice and coming out unscathed, it's not going to simply "go away" after repeated adding to VfD. Sorry. Goat-see 08:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Just to make it absolutely clear, although I know it's implied, I vote for Delete. --Improv 07:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delete. This is so self-serving it hurts. Mike H 07:14, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  4. This looked slightly notable (which is normally enough), but looking at the edit history and comments...God...it's not worth it. I posit this article is uncleanup-able. It's certainly not worth edit wars with self-described trolls. Delete. Cool Hand Luke 07:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    The edit wars happened with various anons. GNAA members haven't actually edit-warred on this article except to revert blatant POV vandalism by SilentCrs. Goat-see 08:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Delete this non-notable organization. They're not widely known now, and are unlikely to be remembered after their demise. Those who are familiar with them regard them as a minor annoyance and not encyclopedia material. They have nowhere near the legendary status of, say, B1FF. Do we really need an article for every loosely-knit gang of 15-year-old vandals who happen to know how to use a computer? Should I add a page for the local morons who spray-paint swastikas on bus stop shelters too? Psychonaut 09:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    This user claims that GNAA's status is nowhere near that of B1FF's, but Google searches show 6,910 hits for B1FF and 4,630 for GNAA. This is the same order of magnitude, and its near impossible to make a distinction of notability between these numbers of hits, especially since GNAA is relatively new and their impact and legacy is only just beginning. If we include B1FF we must include GNAA as well. —siroχo 22:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Funny, I'd never heard of B1FF until just now when I read it here. GNAA Popeye 22:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Specious arguments. B1FF was big twenty years ago, well predating the world-wide web. Thus you can't expect a comparison of Google search results to reflect the importance of the subjects relative to their time periods. Besides which, I said B1FF had "legendary" status. Yes, that's right, he's widely considered to be a net.legend. However, GNAA's paltry few months of existence does not a legend make. If anyone remembers this minor vandalism group five or ten years from now, then you can come back and create a Wikipedia article. Psychonaut 08:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Delete: Horribly non-notable, and the side-issue that the name of the article may be offensive to some which would probably be better avoided since its basically a vanity article (see the fact that Goat-see is trying to extend the sphere of GNAA influence to Wikipedia). --Node 09:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I'm actually trying to ensure that if someone comes to wikipedia looking for information on GNAA, they find a factual article instead of the crap that SilentCRS was trying to push. Also, "Gay Nigger" is offensive? Should I go repeatedly list gay and fuck and nigger and cunt on VfD until someone caves in to deleting it?Goat-see 13:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Straw man - he said "and the side-issue that the name of the article may be offensive to some which would probably be better avoided since its basically a vanity article." His position is quite the opposite of what you imply it is. ugen64 00:28, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Delete, insignificant immaturity. Everyking 12:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Delete, non-notable, pointlessly offensive vanity article. Note how most of the "keep" votes for this article have been from self-described members of this group, who also lovingly tend its contents. -- The Anome 12:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Note how all the "delete" votes have been from non-members of that group. Just proves nothing at all.--Sam Hocevar 12:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    If I created Stafford High School, and ten students from the school voted to keep, would they be worth anything more than ten normal users of Wikipedia who voted delete? I think not. ugen64 00:34, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    Like I brought up on the last Vfd, should members of the KKK not be allowed to edit their own article? What about members of the IEEE or NBA? GNAA is as valid an organization as any of the above 3, and to claim otherwise is either foolishness or having your head in the sand. Goat-see 15:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Puerile, presumptuous, self-aggrandizing, vanity content. Tried to improve a little, but it's hopeless. Although trolls should generally be starved of attention, this does not work with articles that exist for the sole purpose of troll self-advertising, therefore delete with extreme prejudice. Kosebamse 13:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Wrong. The GNAA itself may be self-aggrandizing, but the article is not. If you or anyone else have problems with the PoV of the article (pro or against the GNAA) let's resolve the issue intelligently rather than resorting to name calling and VfD harassment, which all in all is a rather puerile way to get an article deleted, don't you think?GNAA Popeye 14:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. delete Geni 14:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Delete, --Alex Krupp 14:50, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Delete --Demonslave 14:56, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:03, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    "Hmm. Death, nazism and various words for sexual activities are a _bit_ more notable than GNAA. The comparison is plain silly." Agreed. IMO: It's sad but amusing to read the immature babble from those who would wish to keep this page. IMO I find such organizations pathetic. They remind me of people who get together to film themselves doing crazy things to call attention to themselves because otherwise they wouldn't make it on film for doing anything that requires talent. So should Wikipedia have a page for every shock group that forms and receives attention on the internet? I think not. At the very least, at least trolling groups keep such "people" off the streets and locked away in their own little asylum where they can spend large amounts of time polishing their own overdeveloped ego. It shouldn't matter how many times this page has been up for deletion, that it has failed to be deleted in the past is probably due to the amount of people that have been recruited to vote for "keep" as evident here in the comments. --Demonslave 16:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Thank you for a completely subjective and ad hominem rationale for this article's deletion. For all anyhone knows, the GNAA may be full of megalomaniac, puerile trolls, but how are VfD harassments, ridiculous stereotypical characterizations of GNAA members, name calling and other buffoonery any better than the even the lowest alleged antics of the very organization you and other people seem to despise so much? 204.90.50.252 16:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Dear 204.90.50.252, my words stand. IMO: Your retort is weak, as I expected. Get ready folks, as they continue to compare this page to other unrelated pages, watch them squirm as they touch on politics, philosophy, religion, etc. in their desperate attempt to keep their page here. They twist, they turn, they writhe in agony. What a waste of skin. --Demonslave 16:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Your flamebait is tired and boring, and only serves to give the GNAA even more attention. Think before you type next time, and you'll fare better. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to dignify this tripe with a response. 204.90.50.252 17:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    "Your flamebait is tired and boring" IMO: Talking to yourself now? I'm impressed. :) "and only serves to give the GNAA even more attention" or so you'd like to think, rather, they serve to illuminate the fact that this page should be deleted. "Think before you type next time, and you'll fare better" Great advice, you should take it before offering it up to others. "I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to dignify this tripe with a response" Oh boo hoo. Where's your user name? Have to hide behind an IP/proxy to troll? --Demonslave 17:15, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    wtf is that some kind of brawl-hall speak? This is a vote for deletion, not a pathetic flame forum. Grow up and start to reason on this debate. Goat-see 17:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    They twist, they turn, they writhe in agony. Why look, a user name instead of an IP address. (giggle) How charming. My words stand. The trolls will continue to squirm and writhe in various topics to try and convince others to vote keep. Someone else mentioned "That's because people are afraid that if they provide reasons, you and your mercenaries will harass them without end" That's fine, eventually people like this end up crossing someone with a badge and it's game over. --Demonslave 18:03, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Your attitude is unfortunate. We're trying to have a mature discussion here, so please keep the flames to a minimum if you want to be taken seriously. GNAA Popeye 20:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    They twist, they turn, they writhe in agony. --Demonslave 16:33, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    You wish. Look, I'm not getting into a useless flamewar with you, and your words don't merit further acknowledgement. Consider yourself ignored. You lose. HAND. GNAA Popeye 16:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    "You wish." My words stand in fact. "Look, I'm not getting into a useless flamewar with you" perhaps you shouldn't continue to respond? You and the anonymous IP/proxy henchmen are perpetuating just that, a flamewar. "your words don't merit further acknowledgement" Just because one can wiggle themselves onto a cross doesn't make them Jesus. Time to come down and take the tin foil crown off the forehead. "Consider yourself ignored" Oh boo hoo! We're pouting now? "You lose" Going to hold your breath until you turn blue next? "HAND" You actions continue to demonstrate what I've said before, They twist, they turn, they writhe in agony. If indeed the page deserved to stay here, such mafia like tactics wouldn't be needed, it would stand on its own merit. You may now resume your babble. --Demonslave 17:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Delete.BCorr|Брайен 16:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. Delete. Proteus (Talk) 16:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. Keep. You should respect the decision of past vfds. Aris Katsaris 18:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) Changing my vote to delete because of vandalism promoting the page. Aris Katsaris 03:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Past vfds don't look like they came to a conclusive decision. It was defaulted to "keep".
    That's what I mean. Inability to reach a conclusive decision *is* "keep", which should be respected. Aris Katsaris 19:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. Delete. Even if all 40 of them vote. - Nunh-huh 22:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I would love to hear your rationale for your vote. Prove the entry is vanity, or that it's a non-neutral point of view, or anything that would actually make it worthy of deletion, other than it being an organization that you just don't like. Goat-see 22:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    [1] You don't know if I like the organization or not. [2] A club of 40 members is insignificant. [3] If it were significant, it would still not be worth the trouble the article has caused. [4] A now lengthy history proves it is impossible to maintain a neutral article on ths group [5] an article "supervised" by the group it describes is inadequately neutral. -- Nunh-huh 23:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    [2] If it exists, and it is possible someone could come looking for encyclopedic information on it, (which they have) it is significant. [3] The article hasn't caused trouble, only a vocal minority of people who have a bone to pick with the organization. [4] Wrong. It is possible to maintain a neutral article even if a certain group of people continue to vandalize the page and make a mockery of the VfD process. There is a vote going on right now to settle the VfD issue, and there are plenty of ways of dealing with vandalism and edit wars (just look at the Michael Moore or Richard Stallman articles.) [5] Who do you suggest to supervise it? You? The GNAA does not have a monopoly on the article, and anyone is free to edit it provided they are contributing legitimate information about the GNAA. GNAA Popeye 23:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    re: [2]: Would you like a [[list of groups of < 40 members that are notable enough to be part of Wikipedia]]? It would be a long list... — David Remahl 23:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Perhaps he's racist? ;) GNAA Popeye 22:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Yeah, as if "Gay Nigger Association" isn't racist. ugen64 00:34, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Delete: Non-notable. Tregoweth 02:00, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    Care to explain what you mean by "non-notable"? GNAA Popeye 02:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. DELETE a million times over. this is beyone pathetic. having 30–40 losers organized into a troll group does not make them notable, it just makes them obnoxious. Wolfman 02:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Flames aside, do you have any actual reasons why the GNAA article is any less notable than any other Wikipedia article? (being "obnoxious" is not a reason) Or do you simply have an anti-GNAA chip on your shoulder? GNAA Popeye 02:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    How could I have "a chip on my shoulder" about a group I've never even heard of? We keep on kicking out highschools with thousands of students, yet we allow an article about a bunch of junior highschool trolls? Ridiculous. This group is not notable. Wolfman 02:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Re: How could I have "a chip on my shoulder" about a group I've never even heard of? Exactly. You come in here, see the words "Gay Nigger Association of America" and, in the traditional knee-jerk response, type DELETE before doing any research at all on the organization. Also, can you provide links to the article(s) you mentioned as being removed, and indication as to whether they were deleted or simply moved or merged. Futhermore, there are hundreds of articles on obscure bands, groups, cabals and clans on Wikipedia, many of them with many less members than GNAA. Should these be deleted as well? The fact is that "What is the GNAA?" is a question some person is likely to ask at some point, and having this article on wikipedia only increases its encyclopedic value. The article has utility, and I am confident it will stay. GNAA Popeye 02:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  20. Delete. Sad. Forty people (claimed) whose only notability is that they want to be famous and can find no better way than this. Clearly unencyclopedic IMO. Let's just quietly delete them, screaming I expect. No point us screaming too. Andrewa 02:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Wrong. No GNAA member here has claimed that their "desire to be famous" has any bearing on this article's objective notability. The article is notable, for many good reasons which I won't go over again because they can easily be found in the above text. GNAA Popeye 02:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Comment: It's probably true that no such claims have been made, I didn't say that there had been and I don't think it's relevant anyway. Thank you for not repeating your reasons. As you quite rightly say, they can be read in many places above, as can your opinion. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. Delete, and take some sort of action against GNAA "members" for what amounts to vandalism of the VfD page. RadicalSubversiv E 04:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  22. Delete, Wolfman's Google results have convinced me. - RedWordSmith 12:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. Delete. A small group of up to 40 shit-disturbers who think they are important. They might deserve a mention in some article on the trolling phenomenon, but don't seem to me to be especially notable even as a trolling group. But keep this and every group of up to 40 people will demand equal space. Might as well turn Wikipedia over to trolls and their followers. Jallan 14:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. Delete. I have seen no convincing argument for their importance, and this looks like self-advertisement. --Saforrest 16:55, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Delete: trollvertisement. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  26. Delete, or perhaps Merge with Slashdot trolling phenomena, provided that isn't deleted as well [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth ─┼─]] 17:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  27. Delete. Unnotable, vanity page. Really, I feel a lot of people are being blinded by the enormous amount of fuss GNAA members are stirring up here, and I have to admit, the exaggerated reactions they receive in return. Some people really need to get out more. On another note, I'd like to point you all to User_talk:Demonslave, which is receiving continous vandalism because of his comments in the thread above, this for sure is not the Wiki spirit. Mind you, however childish this behaviour is, the reason I vote delete is that GNAA has not had any impact on modern society except for a really small part of the Internet. Merge with some Slashdot trolling article. -- Solitude 19:03, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  28. Delete. I can't really be bothered to read through all the arguments here, and I'm sure someone has expressed my opinion already. I also see that some people are grossly overestimating the importance of GNAA in particular Slashdot in general. Adam Bishop 19:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. Delete. Perhaps the people voting to keep (those who aren't trolls or sock-puppets at least) are fooled by the GNAA's prominence on VFD into thinking it's notable. It most certainly isn't. —Rory ☺ 20:09, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  30. Delete. These people deleted my accurate chnages to the article without even discussing the matter. GNAAdar 20:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    "These people" means Guanaco, and "accurate chnages" means POV. GNAAdar's account was established today and has edits only to the page in question and this vote. I wouldn't be surprised if GNAA "members" are voting for the deletion of the page just to cause confusion (i.e. troll, what they do best). — David Remahl 20:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  31. Delete. A reference to the group name in a Slashdot article and a trolling article suffices. After all, its only angle at notability is name-recognition among Slashdotters; there's nothing else of encyclopaedic notability to say about it. -- WOT 20:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  32. Delete. All the reasons given above. Nicholas 20:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  33. DELETE. FUCK THE GNAA I HATE THEM, I HATE HOW THEY RUINE MY BLOG AND TROLL WIKIPEDIA< THEY ARE SO FUCKING STUPID h8h8h88h8hh8h8 THEM , SO I VOTE!1 .... DELTETE! PenisCone 21:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Another sockpuppet, obviously. His only previous contributions have been vandalism on userpages. Aris Katsaris 21:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  34. Delete. I see absolutely no reason why there should be information on a couple of guys that think they are funny trolling people. This is of no interest for anybody but the GNAA. Regebro 22:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  35. I don't see any reason why a random hate organization is supposed to be worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Hate Watch; the article can be safely deleted. -- Mike Rosoft 22:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    This user has obviously not done any research into the topic, or read the article, as it is not about a hate group. Aside from this uninformed statement, the topic has little to no bearing on inclusion as long as it is notable, which it is. —siroχo 23:24, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    I DID read the article. If GNAA is not a hate group it is awfully close to one. And my point is that it is a random, non-notable group; I am not going to change my vote. -- Mike Rosoft 01:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  36. Delete. Reasons given above. ugen64 00:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment: This has been listed before on September 2 and April 30'th ( did'nt find the discussion ). This is just abuse of process and i call for immitiate removal of this from VFD. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:27, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
    • Bjarmason, you're the one that made the promise to them that it would not be proposed for VfD again. I can understand you want to make good on that promise, but that was a promise you had no right to make -- no wikipedia policy suggests what you said was the way things work. It is not at all without precedent that problem pages fail to be deleted a few times on VfD before they are deleted. I don't see why you object to this instance outside of your promise. --Improv 08:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • My promise was made not based on policies but rather in the good believe that people would have the common sense not to list things here again when the basis for them passing in the first place have not changed at all. What you're doing is wasting everyones time by your re listing of this page and making a mockery of the deletion process. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:48, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
        • I stongly agree w/ Ævar and Goat-see that this page (or any other) should not be repeatedly listed on VfD when its form or notability does not change. To filibuster VfD until a page is deletion is blatant abuse and disrespect for the wiki system, and I strongly encourage creating a policy against this (since so many people can't seem to follow the spirit of wikipedia unless there is a rule telling them what to do). If this page is deleted while in this form or while the GNAA's notability remains the same or greater, I will consider it a breach of Wikipedia policy. —siroχo
    • While I agree with your sentiment, I don't think it should be a strict rule. There are times when it is reasonable to reopen voting on a VfD even when notability doesn't change (this just isn't one of them). And as for a change in "the form" of the page, that is never a reason to delete. Fix the form, if the form is the problem. As for an example of when it would be appropriate to reopen a VfD even when notability doesn't change, consider the case of where only 2 or 3 people comment on the matter. I could see reopening VfD at that point, but if nothing has changed the old "votes" should be kept. VfD shouldn't set binding precedents, either for deletion or against it. Binding precedents should only be set explicitly, on broad issues, after a long period of discussion and a strong showing of consensus among a large group of Wikipedians. anthony (see warning) 14:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I voted against this page remaining here last time then removed my vote because the trolling against me got too bad. This time I abstain because it is much too soon after it was last here to start debating this again. Shouln't have even been listed. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I find it disturbing that when an article is deleted it can be redeleted on sight if recreated, but when an article is kept it can be relisted here over and over again. If you want an article permanently deleted, all you have to do is keep listing it here until people get tired of voting to keep it. anthony (see warning) 14:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Correct. While I am a bored college student, I do in fact have a social life. Also, can this entry be protected from further VfD wars? This is getting patently absurd, and is completely political to boot. --dylain 15:26, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
        • Both dylain and GNAA_Popeye are gnaa members. I am beginning to agree with the sentiments of the others here that most of the people voting keep are GNAA members. This is just getting so stupid. This is just so obvious. Just delete the article and get rid of these people. --JeromeP 15:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • So, just because you're a GNAA member your vote doesn't count. Is that it? If that's what you believe, then you sir are being discriminatory. GNAA Popeye 15:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately I don't think it will be that simple to get rid of them. They're trolls. They troll sites like Wikipedia day out and day in. If we delete the article, they will find new ways of trolling. I'm not saying we should let this influence our decision. The be or not to be of this article should be determined based on the merits of the article and the topic… — David Remahl 15:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Notice how many of the "Delete" votes don't even have a reason accompanying them. I'm not suggesting that people must state a reason with their vote, but it just reeks of thoughtless groupthink. GNAA Popeye 17:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That's because people are afraid that if they provide reasons, you and your mercenaries will harass them without end. --Node 17:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh please, if they can't handle criticism and debate then why are they voting in the first place? And I have yet to see a GNAA member resort to name calling or flamebait here. I have, however, seen it among some of the people seeking to delete this article. GNAA Popeye 17:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Please see this IRC chat where I was threatened for proposing VfD, and also note the vandalism by JesuitX, who co-founded the group]. They have also defaced my BLOG, and as noted in the chat, promise to continue doing so (although I'm going to likely keep an eye on it and delete their additions). So yes, they are conducting a campaign of intimidation. As a note -- I went on IRC to talk to them and see if I could present my side. --Improv 18:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Comment: Even assuming what you said to be true (and not FUD), arguing with the GNAA on whether we're going to have an article about them is totally besides the point. We're not discussing whether we have an article about them with, say, the KKK or Al Qaeda either. Neither is the number of GNAA members in any way relevant. What's relevant is this: Is this organization notable? In other words, have their actions been widely felt? Have they affected many (say 1000+) people? The answer to this is yes and that's as clear-cut a case for keeping as they come. Ropers 18:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • The point is that Node ue is likely correct that this vote may be tainted by intimidation. I agree that the page itself should be decided based on its merits, but it is a worthwhile metatopic that attempts to corrupt the vote may be occuring. --Improv 18:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Note Wow, 14 pages of discussion so far. The GNAA sure is a hot topic!
    • Yes. I can't wait until we get some perspective on this...In 1–5 years, when the "organization" is long-gone and forgotten by most I think this article can perhaps get some perspective too… — David Remahl 20:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but in the past year I've been in the organization I've only seen it grow, by leaps and bounds. GNAA had about 6-10 members a year ago, now it has over 40. GNAA Popeye 20:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, which means it will soon be at the point where it will collapse under its own weight, something that is inevitable for a loosely-knit organization consisting in large part of socially misadjusted people who are bound to mature and turn against the silliness. (Sorry for the off-topic rambling.) — David Remahl 22:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Just to let you know, the GNAA president is in his 40s. And some people never "mature." (Thank goodness!) GNAA Popeye 23:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Note These fellows [Bobby Digital (aka rkz), and Dessimat0r] are not sock puppets! They are GNAA members who are voicing their opinions, and they created new accounts for the purpose of voting for their favorite organization. If you are skeptical, visit our channel and ask them yourself. GNAA Popeye 22:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, sock-puppet in Wikipedia terminology, is used to mean single-issue accounts created just to vote, as well as users with two accounts. VfD are intended for regular contributors familiar with Wikipedia's policies, not for people who just have an agenda to push. — David Remahl 22:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Wrong. Read the wikipedia sockpuppet article again. This is the definition according to Wikipedia: A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who posts under more than one name. I don't see anything designating a user as a sock puppet if he initially created his/her account for a specific issue. GNAA Popeye 22:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • It is a fact that people brought to VfD just to vote are considered sock--puppets. This is mainly for lack of a better word. Another reason is that it is impossible to know who is a sockpuppet (strict meaning of the term) and who is a real person. Anonymous votes, and votes by people without previous edits, are not counted as much as other votes on VfD. — David Remahl 22:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • It's perfectly acceptable not to weigh them as much, but that doesn't mean their opinions don't matter at all, right? GNAA Popeye 22:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Their opinions matter, yes, but their votes don't count. --Node 05:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I really don't think this is wroth all the flaming. Could someone just end this and make a decision.(Note: Schools with hundreds of people have been deleted whereas this group of 40 seems to have quite some staying power. Odd. Guess the students aren't as vocal)BrokenSegue
    • Comment Why do you keep insisting that schools get deleted. You are missing the point. There is ONE GNAA. There are probably tens of thousands of schools in just the United States. GNAA is unique. An entry about high school Improv went to is not. --Timecop 06:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • there are quite a few trolling organisations. Geni 12:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment GNAA Popeye is a vandal (see [1])
    • Nice ad hominem there. What does this have to do with anything? GNAA Popeye 02:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I think it shows what the true purpose of the page is—i.e., it's not being provided for encyclopædic value but rather as a tool for vandalism and for self-promotion of the group. Psychonaut 08:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It gives an extra incentive to delete the page, to dissuade other vandals. Aris Katsaris 03:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment: Disagree. The page should be deleted or kept on its merits. I do however conclude that, since so there seems to be a lot of effort going in to finding arguments to keep the page, there are unlikely to be any better ones than those given above. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Disturbing behavior

Forgetting for now the farse this nomination has made of the deletion process and the bad wikifaith that went into this nomination, can someone who voted to delete explain to me how this is non-notable? I see several delete votes referring to offensiveness, some without reasons, a couple saying the article is "not worth it" for various reasons and a few claiming non-notability. However I see very little reasoning for why it is non notable. Read my comments above, and others' as well, to see some of the reasons it is notable. Also, recall that just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean its non-notable. —siroχo 23:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Chalk much of it up to groupthink and narrow-mindedness - the very attitudes many trolls exist to counter. GNAA Popeye 23:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please do. As an example, The Anome has voted to delete on the past 3 VfDs, has previously locked it as a redirect to Slash Troll Phenom, and has still provided no reasoning. Goat-see 23:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Nothing in the article seems notable. Just the normal stuff that troll groups have been doing since there were groups of trolls. Why does Siroxo think any of it is notable? It amounts to a street gang thinking they are hot stuff because they actually did a bit of damage or even a lot of damage. They are still mostly just another street gang, just doing what many other unnotable street gangs are doing. They haven't changed anything or made any impact I can see. Just being annoying in a very normal, unnotable trollish way. Jallan 15:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I've already shown its notability in terms of Google hits. This group has impact on tens if not hundreds of thousands of people's lives, affecting more people than many other topics on Wikipedia. No I haven't taken a poll and don't have statistics, but /. alone can easily account for tens of thousands of people who have read part or all of one of their posts and been offended or thought it funny, not to mention the other blogs and forums and irc channels they have touched. They have basically revolutionized organized trolling. I don't understand the comparison to a street gang entirely, this organization works only online, so its not an easy comparison to make. If you must make a comparison to the real world, a better comparison might be to Earth Liberation Front. Not many members, very loosely knit, yet notable. —siroχo 23:39, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that a user at 24.51.18.171 who posted above "STOP SPAMMING" etc. (look in the history of this vfd GNAA page and you'll find that IP address at 10:05, Sep 28, 2004) that person also vandalized my user page at 10:21, Sep 28, 2004 with offensive sexual material and even used the words "Gay Nigger". --Demonslave 17:39, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) in addition my user page was vandalized again with the words "Gay Nigger" used by 81.157.66.49 10:35, Sep 28, 2004. More pathetic mafia like tactics. --Demonslave 17:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) my user page was again vandalized on 10:18, Sep 28, 2004 24.131.109.26. I'm now collecting IP addresses and will open an investigation offline into this matter if this continues.
--Demonslave 18:14, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • The first IP is me, the other two are unrelated. By all means state your point, but this is not the place for you to be going around sprinkling your opinions and comments attached to other people.
  • [trollish comment by Achtung! removed] Kosebamse 19:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question two

More disturbing votes: Several people have called this an advertisement for the GNAA. I ask them now to read the article, it may not be perfect NPOV yet (it has become continually better), but it is certianly inclusive of all points of view, and does not advocate any. It states only facts, explains what they have done and what people percieve their beliefs to be. How is this an advertisement for a group any more than John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 is? Please explain. —siroχo 23:53, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Question three

Even more disturbing behavior: People are also voting to delete by saying that "every group of 30 or 40 trolls" (or 15 y/o or whatever) will want to make an article. I say this: Who cares. Take each case as it comes. GNAA is certainly the most "successful" (I use the term loosely, hehe) such group at this time, perhaps ever. If another group of 40 people springs up but isn't notable in any way, don't include an article. If they end up being notable, include another article. Wikipedia has never roundly rejected any type of article. (Even elementary schools can be included if they are notable). Explain how the case around this article is different from standard Wikipedia policies. Should we begin to trim our encyclopedia one topic at a time by deleting this article? I'm sorry to sound sensationalist, but I seriously think people are overlooking the basic ideas behind Wikipedia and voting basically on the actions of the members and the name of the group. —siroχo 23:53, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=6225397"