Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 18

18 February 2011

Bedat & Co

Bedat & Co (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article is about the Bedat & Co company which I feel that I've added sufficient source. However, its been deleted due to "unambiguous advertising". I've discussed this over with User:NawlinWiki and he suggested that I post this article up for review. I don't think that this article is advertising. User:BabyJinxi3 is a draft I've written before re-posting the article again.

BabyJinxi3 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse for now. The primary claim of notability appears to have been that it was once owned by Gucci Group, but considering they sold it so quickly and it isn't even mentioned in the Gucchi Group article it apparently wasn't an especially big deal for them. Sourcing is also poor, including a bunch od trade sites that appear to be press releases, a 404 page, and even an attempt to use a web forum as a source(!!), which is is a big no-no. A suggestion would be to try crating an article on the parent company first, and if that passes muster then try working on the subsidiaries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse the decision, and Starblind's comments, which are exactly what I was about to say. The best course would indeed to try an article on the parent company, which could include a mention of this. Alternatively, a mention could probably be inserted into the Gucci Group article--that it isn't there now does not serve as a standard for lack of notability. Or conceivably Bedat might be personally notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak endorse the original deletions. No disrespect to the administrators who commented above but they made arguments that belong at AFD. The issue here is whether or not the version of the article that has been deleted was "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and after reviewing the text, it's a "coin flip". I probably would have taken it to AFD but it was still within admin's discretion. However, this is just my opinion but all versions of this article look as if they were written by someone with a close connection to the subject. While this is not strictly prohibited it's discouraged because it's difficult for such people to write with a neutral point of view. The article looked more like "adcopy" then an "encyclopedia article" which is why previous version were tagged with G11 in the first place. Also, one weak indicator that a subject may be notable is if someone completely unconnected with the subject elects to write an article on it. (but that in itself doesn't satisfy WP:N) As for User:BabyJinxi3, since there has never been an AFD decision on this subject, let him move it to mainspace and let the community make the call on the issue of notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Gay Nigger Association of America article has had a long and "controversial" history on Wikipedia. The article went through numerous (read: 18) RFDs before finally being deleted. Before you come to a decision on whether it should be undeleted, hear me out.

That was half a decade ago. Since then, the GNAA has been mentioned in numerous sources whos notability cannot be questioned, and can, without a doubt, be considered "notable". To quote riffic, during the last deletion review:

I would like to point out that the sources used in the draft establish notability for both organisations in the same news article. The article by the Atlantic states "Weev rails against Jews in his LiveJournal and he and several other members of Goatse Security claim to be members of the Gay N***** Association of America," and in the Portuguese article in Rede Globo, the author goes on to describe other members of the GNAA.

(Since then, the reason of why Goatse Security and the Gay Nigger Association of America are separate entities has been detailed in this interview.)

Yes, this is listed on the Perennial Requests. This does not mean that it cannot be requested for a Deletion Review. "Please read this before requesting undeletion of any of these articles" does not mean that it cannot be requested, just that a number of factors must first be considered, which they have.

• With the second wave of publicity RE: weev and JacksonBrown's arrests, the Goatse Security/GNAA connection was made a lot clearer.
  • This interview clearly establishes the link between The Gay Nigger Association of America and Goatse Security. This is the "substantial new evidence" required by WP:DEEPER.
• The Patriotic Nigras are a troll group that has undergone far less scrutiny on Wikipedia, despite having much less notable sources. I feel that we must tackle this double standard if we are to improve the encyclopedia.
• This may be seen as an "ad nauseum" request. This is not true, it has been five months since the last request for a Deletion Review. Since then, numerous sources have been added to the draft.
• This is not a frivolous request for undeletion, it is a genuine attempt at recreating an article that I feel is notable. If there are any problems with the article or anything keeping it from being undeleted, it is my intention to fix them.
• Substantial changes have been made since the September 6th Deletion Review, and the September 22nd Deletion Review was closed because it was seen as "frivolous".
• We should only argue this DRV on the merits of the claims of the AFD, which based its outcome on grounds of lack of sourcing.[1]
• There is no denying it, the Gay Nigger Association of America is notable, in their own right. It does not need to "inherit" notability from Goatse Security when it has its own.

The current draft of the article can be found here. If you do nothing else before voting, please, at least compare it to the old article (i.e. the one that was deleted five years ago.)

LiteralKa (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose recreation - this is simply causing too much drama. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:50pm • 02:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't believe I just watched someone rephrase WP:DONTLIKEIT LiteralKa (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support' - It is hypocritical that a noteworthy organization like the GNAA is not on Wikipedia. Many groups with less credibility are, and there is hypocrisy here as a result. It's time to END the drama by recreating a page that SHOULD be here, and leaving it up for good. 76.98.237.76 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Here we go again. Oppose recreation, the current status quo is entirely satisfactory. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Counting all the AfDs and DRVs, we've been over this ground nearly thirty times now. No article for you.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So because of the sheer number of requests, this article will never be notable? I learn something new every day! LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• speedy close no new sources have been provided in this DrV and nothing I see as different from the last DrV has been argued. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, there's been quite a few new news sources about the GNAA since the last DrV. I don't have all of them to hand, but [[2]] is pretty helpful. I don't see how the fact that multiple AfDs and DRVs have passed if the situation has changed between them.
    • If you want to bring something here that is on the list of perennial requests, you need to provide some darn good (new) sources. If you cannot or will not do so, you can't expect anything other than a speedy close. Hobit (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That's odd, I've done nothing but that. LiteralKa (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I guess I'm missing it. Could you spell out exactly what sources you have that weren't part of previous discussions? What exactly has changed? Hobit (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • See this, and I cannot fathom how the problem could possibly be a lack of notable sources, the article is riddled with them! (I count 32 non-GNAA sources) LiteralKa (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy close see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. No, you can't get an article on Wikipedia just by asking again and again and again ad nauseum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It has been five months, how is this "ad nauseum"? LiteralKa (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion- Really, the last AfD could not have been close any other way and I don't really see that much has changed in the meantime. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Substantial changes have been made since the September 6th Deletion Review, and the September 22nd Deletion Review was closed because it was seen as "frivolous".
• Restore the article One of the more peculiar refusals to admit what everyone who knows about it knows perfectly well to be notable. Lack of common sense or distaste for the site are the two likely underlying explanations. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Allow recreation – I know enough about the "Perennial requests" page. The FBI believed that the GNAA was notable enough to warrant several mentions in the criminal complaint they filed. I already wrote several articles already, and I'm confident that an article on the GNAA can be done in accordance with Wikipedia policy. weev and JacksonBrown are standing trial for their online activities, and they receive a lot of attention in the media. Connection and notability is clear: [3]. @Ancient_Apparition: Wikipedia shouldn't censor itself out of fear or convenience. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Allow recreation I know there is a huge history with the GNAA and Wikipedia, but I think if someone were to create a page about a different organization with the same sourcing that Murdox's draft has there would be no issues. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose recreation Per my statements in previous discussions; I don't think anything has changed since then, and GNAA is obviously something that does not deserve a Wikipedia article. I'm sure that more than half of the votes here have been canvassed in their IRC network, just like the last discussion; prove me wrong. Diego Grez (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather combative tone you have there. I can assure you that no canvassing has occurred. Please assume good faith in the future. Thanks in advance! LiteralKa (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay. My comments are grounded in what happened in previous discussions; if that hasn't happened now, then I sincerely apologize for not assuming good faith. Diego Grez (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you also care to specify why the GNAA is "obviously something that does not deserve a Wikipedia article"? LiteralKa (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It's rather a personal opinion; I just don't think it deserves its own article, as most sources given in the article are either, primary sources, or they are reports on something else and make very little mention of the Gay Nigger Association of America. Diego Grez (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • First off, that's not true. Second, even if that were the case, the sheer number of sources would make it so that there is still plenty of mentions. Third, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to endorse the deletion. LiteralKa (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, and these edits invalidate your claims of "passing mentions". LiteralKa (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't said that I don't like it; I'm just pointing out that still I don't see a single, third-party source that covers the association in depth, or at least to demonstrate this specific association's notability, and still see several primary-source-references (want the numbers? Okay: Ref #1, #4, #5, #11, #26, #27, #36 (not of the association, but Goatse Security, which claims to be "a subsidiary"), and #41). Want me to check, and comment on every single other reference, too? I'd be glad to do that! Diego Grez (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Those refs are to cite claims the organization makes, I excluded those in my count of 32 good sources. And yes, actually, that would be great! LiteralKa (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It is incomplete, might finish it later. User:Diego Grez/GNAA references review‎ Diego Grez (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I personally would prefer a complete assessment of the sources instead of the first seven so that I can properly assess how to improve the article. Thanks in advance. Murdox (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think that anybody can state for sure that canvassing has occurred (Diego Grez) or that canvassing has not occurred (LiteralKa) but I see only one comment in this discussion that does not come from an established editor. However, IMHO it's very likely that it has. Why? Because they're the "GNAA". Any discussion here on whether or not there should be an article on them has a high probability of generating drama and drama="lulz". Lots of meatpuppets means more drama and therefore more "lulz" and creating "lulz" is what they do. This is almost as certain as a magnet will attract iron or my cat will chase a laser pointer. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. LiteralKa (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Name one participant in this discussion for which I have failed to do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • You've certainly implied that I have. LiteralKa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I said that in my opinion that canvassing has occurred, I never said that you did it or suggested that this review was started in bad faith. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Just like some people believe that the Freemasons / Jews / liberal media are behind everything, some people here believe that GNAA is secretly manipulating this !vote from behind the scenes. Can we please put the conspiracy theories aside and have a productive discussion? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose recreation (strongly). Purely and simply, I oppose recreation of this article. I don't see why we should allow an organisation which has had what can only be described as a Vendetta against Wikipedia and its associated IRC channels, to have a page detailing itself on the very same site that it and its members choose to fuck up mercilessly. No dice. BarkingFish 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of the Conservapedia users feel pretty strongly about wikipedia, and I'm in no doubt that some of their members have vandalised wikipedia at one point or another in the name of Conservapedia (if anyone could go dig up an example of this I'd love them long time). As it stands, I don't see how this is relevant to a deletion review. Could you please elaborate? Murdox (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)