Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (7th nomination)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Don't feed the trolls. We shouldn't have this article FireStone 16:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC) (note: this is FireStone's first edit.) Silensor 18:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Indeed, the nominator has been blocked indefinitely. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep no need to delete. FroogolShopping 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trolling is something we don't want to encourage by having an article on them. Quintillion 17:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sigh... probably a bad faith nomination intended to further push back the date this can ever actually be considered for deletion, but who knows. I encourage people not to kneejerk react here. This article is original research, it's as simple as that. Check the sources, none even mention GNAA except in webforum sections, which clearly does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Recently there was some drama over people wanting to add that "GNAA is in decline" and people reverted it as vandalism. Eh... this shows the whole problem with original research. Who are we to believe in a content dispute? There are no sources whatsoever to check... it's just conjecture and opinion verses more conjecture and opinion. Even Slashdot has never written an article about GNAA (by acronym or full name) no one but Wikipedia can be duped into covering these guys. I asked two months ago for an actual reliable source about GNAA... and absolutely nothing has emerged. Ah well, I had to say it.--W.marsh 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  We have plenty of articles that have no sources or even no WP:RS. See Slashdot for an example. Also, this article does have a RS, the article in The Scotsman. kotepho 17:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaningful coverage... that's just two sentences, mentioning that they are indeed a trolling group. It wouldn't help with any of the issues on this page. An article doesn't have to cite sources really unless there's a content dispute, the point is that sources do actually exist when there is a controversey. A very quick check [1] shows 633 recent news stories mentioning Slashdot, many are actually about Slashdot and look like they have good information that could be cited in the article. --W.marsh 17:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to google do it correctly. Google News uses slashdot as a source. Lets search the New York Times to see how many times the New York Times is mentioned! Even with the 157 results left most of them are not about /. and even if they are you will not be able to cite half of what is in the Slashdot article. kotepho 17:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that the nominator should maybe have looked at the talk page first, which displays the long and distinguished AfD history of this article. That being said, since it's here again, delete per W.marsh. Sandstein 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  That's pretty much my opinion too. I can't in good conscience act to keep original research... but I wish this nom hadn't been made right now, and this way. --W.marsh 17:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep It isn't Christmas season. kotepho 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I did a google search and pretty carefully checked and can't find any notability. Multiple postings in online forums but no major sources. They are on slashdot but only in a discussion forum. Google news returns no results. Nytimes.com--0 results. Note that if they are to be deleted from here, someone who works across other wikimedia sites might attempt the same at GNAA's entry in Wiktionary [2], and at the simple english wikipedia [3]. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete immediately, and protect deleted page. The actual content of >75% of the article is speculation, rumour, and personal opinion.. with so much associated controversy, phrases such as "generally assumed", "tend to" should have been extirpated rather than poorly cited from an article as high-profile as this. This article is the lowest of the low as far as Wikipedia is concerned, in terms of user disagreement and persistance in trying to get the article back up at any opportunity, and the fact it is creating so much negative opinion is too strenuous on Wikipedia's wagon of faith. This article is bad for the atmosphere of Wikipedia in general. Bobo. 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Feel free to remove the OR from the article. That would still leave an article, even if it is a substub. kotepho 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Fair point, Kotepho. Thank you. Bobo. 17:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Should be a speedy keep like the last time. 9 AfDs is riduculously excessive, especially after the 6th was proclaimed to be the last and was highly trafficed. Although the full name reveals few Google hits and GNAA is overbroad, "Gay Nigger" reveals plenty. Also, if the stuff about the professor's speech is true, we have for the GNAA what we have for few Internet phenomenons: Academic commentary. As notable as trolls can be. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment.At the suggestion of your text, I tried a search with "gay nigger," but limiting the results so it wouldn't rope in all the articles under the full name, wikipedia mirrors, etc. Only 65 unique hits and again, can't find anything reliable [4]. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. GNAA is the number one most notable troll organization in the world. This article does have references as-is, and to state otherwise is a boldface lie. Silensor 17:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong DeleteTroll organizations by their nature should not be entitled to articles. Not to mention that there's no reliable sources for this. pm_shef 17:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per Fuhghettaboutit. --Hetar 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This group is notable, no matter how much you may dislike them or what they do.--Myles Long 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although I don't agree with the group's actions, they definitely deserve to be on here due to their internet impact.Mrperson27 17:48, 25 March 2006
• Keep, I'm noticing that a lot of the reasons for deleting is not to feed the trolls, but it seems to me that trying to delete this article is the precise definition of feeding the trolls. In any case, the questions should be notable and verifiable, not whether what they do is offensive. Or should we delete Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin? --Deville (Talk) 17:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR.--Dakota ~ ° 18:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to me there are two issues here, verifiability and notability--is this a real group? (and what do we mean by real?) and (more importantly) is in notable enough for an article. I suppose that I'm willing to allow that it is verified: someone is trolling pretending to be this group. But is the phenomenon notable? On this score, I think not. Who has ever seen first hand any of this trolling? And, more to the point, has it been deemed notable enough to rate a single article anywhere in the mainstream media? There are lots of people and groups that are the subject of a handful of real news stories that are still not wiki-worthy. A fortoriori, GNAA isn't either. Bucketsofg 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Lots of people have seen their trolling. The Naruto/GNfOS did happen. The Apple photos did happen. The MacOSX release did happen. kotepho 18:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. So basically the reasoning here is that this article on a trolling group will encourage others to troll? What specious logic that is. People are going to troll regardless of whether there's a group who does it; they've been trolling for long before the GNAA existed, and they'll be trolling long after the GNAA goes away. The group seems notable enough, though the article appears to need some sources for the first couple sections. -- Wwagner 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. Probably deletable per User:W.marsh above, but this 9th nomination will fail to find consensus, as will the 10th, 11th, 12th... it's time to stop wasting everyone's time and energy with the AfD process on this article. Vslashg (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nn troublemakers. Golfcam 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very notable. Sn0rlax 18:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Notability not evident. -- Egil 18:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly "notable" enough. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and protect from deletion permenantly. This has survived 8 attempts at deletion. It's time to move on to more important things like writing an encyclopedia. Not to mention all of the above reasons to keep.Gateman1997 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep per multiple previous AfDs. I move we close this debate since the nominator is an indef-blocked drive-by. More than en ough time has been wasted on this already. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has the world gone mad? --Jscott 20:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)