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 Ropers (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 28 December 2004 (→‎Keep Votes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gay Nigger Association of America

Apparently this was up for deletion in September. No consensus was reached. To me it looks like a clear case of trivia--they're basically "self-aggrandizing trolls" who infest Slashdot. As a longtime Slashdot user I've never heard of them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Previous VfDs

When voting it is vital that you place your vote under the correct header to ensure that counting and clarity is maintained. Add your vote to the bottom of the keep list, or the delete list.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep, and anyone who wants my opinion as to why has only to look at my extensive commentary found in the last two Vfd pages. Whoever raised this 5th vfd, well done. You're accomplishing nothing, except to gain our fine organization even more publicity. GNAA Popeye 16:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Actually, the nominator is now one of the keep voters. Xezbeth 16:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    LOL! GNAA Popeye
  2. Keep. Anyone who reads slashdot regularly will have encountered them. The constant VfDs of this article are trolling themselves.jdb 18:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Oddly, I never have. I read slashdot on at least level 3 so I seldom if ever see anything remotely trollish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I read at level 5, but I used the controls to add 6 points to 'Troll', 'Offtopic', and 'Flamebait' comments, so I see all of them. Many comments so labeled are genuinely amusing, and many others are the victim of obvious moderator bias, especially on stories that discuss U.S. politics). jdb 05:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Keep. Notable enough. --SPUI 19:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Keep. Well known group. Jamesday 20:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Keep, notable trolling group -- Rhobite 20:18, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Keep, where's the harm? -- kmccoy (talk) 20:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Keep, as usual... *sigh* Sam Hocevar 20:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Keep. How many times must we go through this? Three attempts and three keeps, time to let it go, whatever you feel about the article. Gamaliel 21:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Keep. I must concur with Gamaliel's sentiment. Also, you'll probably only see GNAA stuff on Slashdot if you set your threshold to 0 or -1. dma 21:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Indeed. Only trolls and their fans (and, alas, now Wikipedians) seem to have heard of these people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Keep. Isn't it a rule that no article be listed on VfD if it's already survived in a form that isn't radically different? And Dma, if I'm not mistaken, just shot down the lister's main argument. -- Kizor 21:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Keep, notable enough for me. Sietse 22:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. Keep or merge Established notability in article, also very well organized and surprisingly NPOV considering that the GNAA actively trolls Wikipedia. If anything merge some or all of content into Slashdot trolling phenomena, although I think this is less appropriate since clearly the GNAA trolls other places then Slashdot. Masterhomer 22:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Keep -- Robert Pendray 00:02, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Keep, Jesus fucking Christ, not again. This is ridiculous. --Bk0 01:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. Keep, this is the fourth time they have been listed. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. Keep. I knew this would one day come up again. And I also knew what my vote would be. Article may need some trivia cleanup, but definitely meets our objective standards. We're here to vote on the subjective part, and I say keep. JRM 01:33, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
  18. Keep, on account of the repeated VfDs if nothing else. Having survived that many VfDs should indicate something about its worthiness of inclusion. Bryan 02:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. Despite the presence of the names of ome very honourable and admirable Wikipedians under the delete header, I feel that the only reasonable vote here is to Keep. More notable than Wayne Hills High School or Pope Michael and just as notable as say All your base are belong to us... Come on, people, give it up. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  20. I think not. Guanaco 04:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. I've voted to keep before and I'll do it again. I believe the GNAA is a notable enough part of Internet culture. The article is surprisingly well-written--it's neutral, relatively verifiable, and doesn't tend towards excess. Simply wanting the GNAA to "go away" or to leave Wikipedia alone is not, in my opinion, a well-thought-out rationale for deleting the article. --Slowking Man 04:23, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Weak Keep. I don't know which I find more bothersome: the GNAA or this filibustering of VFD. -- Bobdoe 04:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. Keep. ElBenevolente 04:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  24. Keep. At this point, the continuous failing VfDs have proven that the GNAA are here to stay. Andre (talk) 05:14, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Keep. It's getting to the stage where the repeated listings on VfD are worthy of a section of the article. -- Chuq 05:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I believe you just explained why there are so many keep votes. Apparently people think that if something becomes well-known among Wikipedians, that has something to do with its importance in the wider world. Isomorphic 07:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  26. Keep this time and keep every time deletionists and censors list it.Dr Zen 06:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  27. Keep. I had heard of them long before they got involved with wikipedia, and besides, we have many things less notable. The very fact that this was listed here so many times is symptomatic that there are deeper issues that should be resolved that can't be solved just by listing the page on VfD. Yelyos 06:56, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  28. Keep Notable enough. Sillydragon 08:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  29. Keep. They've managed to establish notability for themselves. --Carnildo 09:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    ...mostly by persistent trolling of Wikipedia. Kosebamse 09:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  30. Keep They're notable and these vfds are just making them more notable. :) Bogdan | Talk 09:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  31. Keep. Quoting directly from Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." Dan100 10:15, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  32. Keep. Samaritan 11:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  33. Keep. Had I realised that there had been numerous prior failed VfD attempts, I would not have submitted this VfD. Whatever my personal feelings on the validity of this article (and they have not changed), my nomination has acquired an appearance of vindictiveness that was not intended. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    So let me get this straight, You nominated this page for Deletion, voted Delete, then noted that other people had previouslly nominated to VfD it, so to prove you aren't suffering from Groupthink, you acknowledge you still believe it should be deleted and vote Keep? That is some wild-ass logic! (no offense meant, of course). 192.94.73.2 18:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    No, I don't see where I wrote anywhere that I'm trying to prove that I don't suffer from groupthink. I regard intentional relisting of articles that have repeatedly failed to raise a consensus as an abuse of process. I had listed the article in ignorance of its history on VfD. Now I am no longer ignorant of that history. I cannot withdraw my VfD nomination but I can vote against it. It is true that I still regard the article as a vanity piece. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  34. Keep -- they are infantile vandals, but they have succeeding in becoming notable infantile vandals ➥the Epopt 15:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  35. Keep. Same reasons as the times before, I'll write a long article about why to keep it for the 5th time... not. Philip Nilsson 15:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  36. Changing my vote to Keep. All this fuss must mean some form of documentation should exist. I don't read sites like Slashdot (for many obvious reasons), but I feel they have established themselves enough to be part of a paperless encyclopedia. Norman Rogers\talk 15:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  37. Keep. Eleven? That's ridiculous, that's not even funny! Grue 19:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  38. Keep: Making a mockery of process, notable etc. etc. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:31, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
  39. Keep. Seriously. how often do we have to go through this? -- Ferkelparade π 20:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  40. Keep. Previous VfD votes clearly demonstrated that there is no consensus to delete, and I agree with the widespread feeling that once an article has survived VfD it should be left in peace for a while, probably three to six months. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  41. Keep. They're even a legend of sorts on Wikipedia now. Can we just let this rest once and for all? I mean, it is a trollmagnet, yes, but... --Node 00:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  42. Keep. Even if it were not too soon after the last VfD, which it is. Mindspillage 00:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  43. Keep. Very well known. -Ld | talk 01:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  44. Keep was my previous vote. Notable, but stupid. Mikkalai 03:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  45. Extreme keep. "As a longtime Slashdot user I've never heard of them" is the most fucking hillarious thing I've heard all year. And we're getting close to the end here, folks. —RaD Man (talk) 07:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  46. Keep Let us be consistent: they're trolls alright, but they are no less notable than all the obscure wrestlers or B-series actors we have pages on. Phils 19:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  47. Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  48. Keep. The deletionist trolling and manipulation of votes by biased admins makes a double mockery of the entire VfD process. This entire listing is invalid. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  49. Keep Squash 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) See comments
  50. Keep - again. I wish this trolling would stop. Intrigue 00:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  51. Keep. Mod parent down! Deletionist vandals must be stopped. Trollminator 22:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Moved from the questionable votes; this guy has been here for a while and has made legit edits. --SPUI 00:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    And now moved back after someone reverted my move. --SPUI 01:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    It appears that User:Neutrality is responsible for all of these questionable moves to the questionable votes section. Neutrality: please stop playing with the votes. —RaD Man (talk) 01:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    This user has been around a few months and has many edits. On what grounds has it been removed? Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  52. Keep - Big enough impact on Slashdot and various other communities to be considered noteworthy. :: DarkLordSeth 02:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  53. Keep, for the nth time! -- This vote is for inclusion with this and any and all potential future repeats of this poll. Ropers 02:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete Votes

  1. Delete, but I'm convinced VfDing for a 4th time is pushing it. Xezbeth 15:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
    Four times? Good grief! If I'd known I wouldn't have bothered. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    That's okay. Now that you've admitted your mistake, cancel the VfD.
    A nominator cannot withdraw a valid VfD. The VfD should run its course. Those agreeing with me that there have been way to many VfDs already can vote "keep" as I do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Some people will vote keep just because it survived this long, which is a disgrace. Slashdot hooligan vanity. If this is notable, then we should throw in the towel on VfD, and allow anything into the Wikipedia. --BM 16:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • To be honest, it's pretty disgraceful that this has been nominated for VfD four times simply because they disagree with the activities described in the entry. --Rolloffle 22:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delete, blown out of proportion, not notable. silsor 16:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Strong delete. It only got kept last time because a bunch of GNAA members joined up and voted to keep it, as I recall (although there were a number of entirely legit votes). Everyking 16:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Delete BrokenSegue 17:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Delete. —Korath会話 17:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Delete. Vanity. Neutralitytalk 17:45, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
    Delete. They've had their fun. We have been trolled [1], now its time to get rid of this. Norman Rogers\talk 18:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Delete. Antandrus 18:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Delete. Gazwim 18:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Delete Article does not establish notability, beyond posting some crap on some websites and leaking some OSX screenshots. Not notable enough for an article. Trollcruft. Merge into an article about trolling, if someone feels dedicated enough to bother. Tuf-Kat 18:59, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Delete, but now that you've brought attention to it again, expect more trolling from them here. Adam Bishop 19:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Delete as usual. Perhaps it would get rid of them. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 19:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but lol. Sam Hocevar 20:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. Delete. or merge in an article on trolling if someone feels like it. Or not. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Delete - let's see if we can get through this without people believing a bunch of sockpuppets screaming "we're important" again. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    With respect, I'm not a sock puppet just because I have voted to keep the article on this notable trolling group. What I am is longstanding administrator in this project and a developer who is aware of the group and recognises that, aside from the silly trolling here, the group is notable. Do remember that any developer, me included, is able to chek for sock puppets on request. The usual result of such a check is an absence of sock puppets. I'll be happy to check this VfD, or any other, on request, if there appears any significant chance of the result being changed. Jamesday 20:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Sockpuppet checks are inherently limited and don't detect astroturfing. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    And why would you be screaming "we're important"? -- Cyrius|✎ 21:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. Delete. Not particularly notable, and keeping this article only aids their campaign of self-aggrandizement. Isomorphic 19:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. Delete. Don't feed the trolls - David Gerard 20:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. Delete - Nunh-huh 20:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. Delete, like spammers, trolls are not inherently notable until they've at least had some documented stays in prison for it. Wyss 20:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  20. Delete as usual. You've had your fun, kids, now go play outside and stop bothering the grownups. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. Delete, again, same reason. - RedWordSmith 20:50, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Delete. They're not now funny and as far as I can tell never have been. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It sounds specious to judge an entry's worth based on its humour value. --Rolloffle 07:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. Delete, delete, delete and delete again. They're way down the notability food chain. Merry Christmas. sjorford 21:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  24. Delete. Let's hope we can get rid of this for good this time. -- The Anome 22:18, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Delete: agree with TUF-KAT. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  26. Not notable, trollcruft, delete. Kosebamse 22:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  27. Delete vanity troll. If you believe the article, they're mostly spammers, not trolls. As an experienced Usenet and IRC troll, I know the difference. Gazpacho 23:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Read the article on crapflooding - "As a technique, crapflooding is typically considered by other trolls to be a "lesser" form of trolling since less intellectual effort is involved in carrying it out." Crapflooding is trolling. --SPUI 23:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  28. Delete. Let it die, folks. hfool 23:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  29. Delete. Evercat 23:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  30. Delete, unencyclopedic. Organization is not notable and has not acheived anything significant. They really are not important in any meaningful way. Arminius 00:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  31. Delete. Not notable; maybe merging the more important points with a larger article on Internet trolling would be good, though -- with this page redirected there. It doesn't warrant its own page, however. --Sarcasticninja 17:44, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  32. Delete. Non notable. -- taviso 22:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  33. Delete. Ambi 01:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  34. Delete. Finally, someone let six months pass since the last VfD. Now I can vote to delete. Subject is non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 02:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't look closely enough. The dates were not in order. Oh, well. It's high time, anyway. SWAdair | Talk 07:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  35. Delete. Their "notable activities" just look childish and frivolous to me. Delete as a vanity page. PS: Although it has to be said I'm not keen on articles being constantly sent back to VfD, if the previous votes weren't trolled I would have had to vote keep on principle. Rje 03:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  36. Delete: People without names are celebrating their ability to be churlish. There is nothing verifiable here. It's as simple as that. Let their bards sing songs and their women dance with bare navels and freshly shaven beards, but let this not be confused with material that belongs in an encyclopedia, which requires verifiability. Geogre 05:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What portion of the article doesn't meet your standard of verifiability? The article is very well-documented with verifiable sources. ElBenevolente 00:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  37. Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg 05:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  38. Delete as original research and/or vanity article. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No longer any original research on article; significant comments have been referenced with links. --Rolloffle 08:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And when it's deleted, redirect to Slashdot Trolling Phenomena and protect the redirect. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  39. Delete Non-Notable. Before I joined WP I had neevr heard of them, and I'm very active on Slashdot, which spawned them. Sponge! 06:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  40. Delete. Same reasons as last time. john k 06:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  41. Delete. Same reasons. ugen64 06:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  42. Delete. Never heard of them outside Wikipedia, and I've read Slashdot at -1 since 1999. There's a lot of well-known trolls, but these aren't among them---they're only famous on Wikipedia. --Delirium 07:31, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  43. Delete. Clearly vanity. Martg76 07:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  44. Delete. Let's not set a precedent that disrupting Wikipedia (or Slashdot, for that matter) constitutes notability, or every egomaniac will set about doing exactly that. No strong feelings on a redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena, provided the redirect is protected. RadicalSubversiv E 10:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  45. Delete; Non-notable, vanity. —tregoweth 16:16, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  46. Strong delete. This borderline vanity article is taking up way too much time and effort. Vacuum c 16:57, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  47. Delete, not notable. --fvw* 18:05, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
  48. Delete with extreme prejudice.Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  49. Delete. A couple of brats occasionally make prank posts? Either it's not notable or I want an article on the prank phone calls I made when I was a kid. --LeeHunter 23:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Did you actually read the article? Those guys are coordinated, they brought down 4chan, they forced a slashdot founder to kill off comments on his blog, they've caused major disruption to many sites. They even have their own script AND an IRC server they coordinate operations from. So how are they "just a couple of brats" that don't cause major disruption? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  50. Delete Should be merged into Slashdot trolling phenomena or Internet troll. an extreme example, but still only an example. - Amgine 00:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  51. Delete I agree with the merge, because they are significant, but for the most part an organization full of people with nothing better to do than annoy people and make their lives harder does not deserve a whole article on Wikipedia. --Joshk 04:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  52. Delete Non-Notable. Vaoverland 01:49, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  53. Delete Moncrief 01:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  54. Delete After reading the article and reviewing their website. [[User:Hydnjo| Hydnjo\talk]] 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment: Quoting directly from Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." Dan100 10:16, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Awesome! So to get my vanity page back, I just have to be persistent? I had no idea this was acceptable behaviour!
Just don't re-create the same content.
  • Comment: It appears this article clearly falls into the area of deletability: it has no independent verifiability whatsoever so immediately fails the encyclopedic test - David Gerard 23:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I think you're exaggerating. Some things may not be sufficiently verifiable (and should therefore go), but surely you're not questioning the group's very existence or their most prominent actions. I think we can get independent verification of that, where the article does not already give it. (That it may not have explicit verification now is not enough grounds for deletion; the majority of our articles don't.) JRM 01:33, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
    Maybe, but I'd like to see ANYTHING in this article substantiated by ANYTHING other than the GNAA sites listed at the end. ANYTHING. Surely that's not too much to ask - David Gerard 03:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    That strikes me as a fair request. How about it, keep-voters? Mackensen (talk) 06:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Sure. This involved going to the GNAA IRC server, but I've sourced just about all the claims. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC).
  • Comment
  1. May be it was not notable earlier. But coming for delete for 5 times make it quite notable :-)
  2. But I won't even buy this argument. That it got notable after 'nomination' of deletion. If it is not notable why people are voting in such a high number???
  3. May be just by coincidence? But this too is not valid. Because of very special voting instructions to avoid edit conflicts. So people who ‘nominated’ it for deletion, already knew it is notable!
Is there any thing wrong with my arguments? If not will be waiting for ‘counter comments’. Zain 02:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The fact that it's been up for deletion five times has no bearing on the notability of a certain topic. What is notable is the article itself - i.e. should we create an article The Wikipedia article about the GNAA? That's the issue here... ugen64 06:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So the article The Wikipedia article about the GNAA will be encyclopedic and noteable, but GNAA it self won't be encyclopedic. Sounds funny to me. Plus you didn't provide answers to high voting and special voting instructions.
Zain 12:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I do not accept your definition of notability, by your reckoning, there can be no such thing as non-notability, by examining a topic you give it notability. Presumably prior to examination it exists in a Schrodinger's cat-like sate, but immediately becomes notable upon examination. I do not accept this, there is no Falsifiability! Nothing people say, or any vote outcome can prove this Non-Notable!
Regarding the High Voting problem, I will explain why I decided to vote, maybe this will be of interest to you. I have a wikipedia account and have voted (Delete), but am posting this anonymously (No particular reason). I have never heard of GNAA before today, I am a regular slashdot reader and out of boredom decided to lower my threshold from 2 to 1, when I spotted this comment, out of curiosity, I clicked the link. Once I had read the available material, I was shocked that an obvious Vanity and clearly not notable page had survived for so long, so I voted.
Your third questions is easy to solve, the Higher than usual voting numbers make the normal hap-hazard voting vfd system very difficult to manage. 192.94.73.22 17:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Comment:I do not appreciate being listed under questionable votes just because I don't edit here often (I did time to time before I registered a couple months anonymously to fix vandalism, but I have been severely busy as of late). I am nobody's sockpuppet, and find the judgment to place me among that list questionable. I regularly use Wikipedia as a resource, and appreciate the efforts of those who do have the time to edit frequently, but this would be the second slap in my face on the part of Wikipedia admins as far as I'm concerned.Cwydian 02:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Two remarks. First, that the vote is questionable doesn't mean your opinion is questionable. In fact, the very observation that you're here defending your status as Wikipedian should be enough for an admin to make your vote count. "Questionable" does not mean "ignore without further ado". Second, your vote could be moved by anyone, not just an admin. And let's face it: if you have two edits, then unfortunately, you are going to have to prove that your account is legit. This is an unfortunate but probably necessary breach of assuming good faith, on purely technical grounds. Rest assured that your vote will count in the end, or I'm severely misjudging our admins. JRM 02:53, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
    Thanks for addressing my concerns, JRM. I don't edit alot because most of the time, I'm either satisfied with the article or am uncertain as to what I can contribute, am unsatisfied by what I am trying to contribute, or simply just don't have the time (which is usually the case). I'm willing to answer questions or do whatever is needed to verify this accounts legitimacy if required, however. Cwydian 03:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Must the vote be sorted like this? It makes any debate very hard to follow. The regular format works most of the time, doesn't it? hfool 03:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there's a possibility that whichever admin makes the final decision on this can't count very well or might get confused? Anyway, every response to this VfD is pure troll food. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The GNAA entry, describing a phenomenon common to Slashdot, is no less "notable", than, say, the entries CmdrTaco or Slashdot trolling phenomena. Also, the entry now contains non-GNAA-affiliated references for all of its substantial claims and so cannot be considered "original research". Further, the entry is actually informative; someone seeing a reference to the GNAA on a bulletin board or by someone else can consult it to find out some background information. -- User:Rolloffle
  • Comment: the page is fully referenced now. I can't see anything that could be called original research now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A bunch of disorganised GNAA references to demonstrate notability substantiate claims in the article:

evidence to fight wikipedia haters version 1 h3n 2004.12.26 02:20 CST

http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3ahttp%3a//www.gnaa.us

around 40 hits, about half of which are from their own website.
Funny, I can count 47 hits that are not from the GNAA website.
Even Funnier, google only displays 46 results total...so counting 47 is an impressive feat.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GNAA

2 definitions, the contributors only contribution was this definition the other contributor only made one other contribution.

press release picked up by some service http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200409/1095138951.html

Yeah, some unmoderated free service that was submitted by 'lysol' (see top left corner), a GNAA member. Wow, that's craptacularly notable.
Read the website again. "We reserve the right to modify / delete your press releases!". Hardly unmoderated to me.
Heh.

GNAA featured in comic http://www.asciiartfarts.com/20040112.html

Interesting you assume this has anything to do with your group.
What other group would it relate to? The Global Network of Arab Activists?
Please provide evidence it isnt
Search Google for "GNAA RULES". All links refer to the Gay Niggers group.

random people talking about GNAA http://www.carpetburn.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&topic=170&forum=1&page=-1 http://brawl-hall.com/forums/showthread.php?p=245622#post245622 http://revjim.net/comments/10052/

discussing the movie, not your group.
discussing the group.
Read it again.
You read it again. Quotes from first link: "http://www.gnaa.us/", "this guy really went all out with this gnaa stuff", from second link: "GNAA what is worser then being a negro", "the GNAA is lurking...", third link: "Hadn't thought about that film since the last time my comments were crapflooded by the GNAA.", "Yo dog..but are you a member of The Gay Nigger Association of America?", "HA! rotfl! I'm joining!"

http://www.livejournal.com/users/nebelherz/316594.html http://service.monochrom.at/pipermail/bagasch/2004-October/000664.html

discussing a k5 story, not you!
discussing a story written by the GNAA.
By that logic, www.mcdonalds.com is also proof of notability, because GNAA members eat there.
Your arguments make no sense to me. To establish notability of a writer, you can quote people discussing his/her writings. Anyone answering "By that logic, www.mcdonalds.com is also proof of notability, because a writer eats there" would be laughed at.

http://forums.accidental-discharge.com/index.php?showtopic=75 http://17chan.net/index.php?showtopic=982 http://www.punkband.tv/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010363 http://forum.emp.de/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=004725

these are all hardly worth mentioning

Today isn't a day too bright for these forums. Today we were attacked by "GNAA" http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:ENrvvPrZQwwJ:wow.warcraftstrategy.com/+%22gay+nigger+association+of+america%22&hl=en

You guys crapflooded his site, then he explains to his readers who you are, in other words, not notable enough to be recognized by them.
But notable enough to be explained?
Are you kidding me?
If the GNAA was not notable enough, then what was the point of explaining who they were?

"Half the posts now'adays have to do with stupid mods, the Gay Nigger Association of America" http://www.fuckthatsite.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1130.html

one guy who browses slashdot at -1 explains to the rest of the forum (who don't) what they're missing. not notable enough for them to have heard of in other words.
Worth mentioning to people who don?t browse at -1 in other words.
Hehe
Please don?t add spelling errors in my comments.

"Kudos to them for making the website look legit" http://www.peelified.com/cgi-bin/Futurama/12-001693-15/

one mention, with a link to explain what he's talking about, not notable.

discussion of leaked screenshots http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:4Uaqalbj0OwJ:99mac.se/forum/showthread.php%3Fgoto%3Dnewpost%26t%3D46800+%22gay+nigger+association+of+america%22&hl=en http://www.mediamac.dk/index.php/forum/new/pid=181293 http://www.mediamac.dk/index.php/forum/show/tid=41888

1 comment on a blog? not notable.

dremel.com pumpkin incident http://sam.zoy.org/fun/goatse/pumpkin.jpg http://216.234.51.66/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79383 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127392&cid=10680435 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127824&cid=10679760

evidence that this was anything to do with you?
have you even clicked the first link?
I wasn't disputing they put their logo on a image (who knows if they made it), but messing about in photoshop and making an image is not the same as defacing a website and uploading somebody's image.
Having this image show on every product page of dremel.com has the same effect as defacing the page. As for "who knows if they made it", just ask the webmaster who hosts the image.

"GNAA fool macrumors" http://www.baseboard.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17030

Wil Wheaton blog entry http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/001606.php

gnaa not mentioned?

GNAA GNFOS release http://www.borntobechicken.com/index.php?cat=5

discussing the movie, not you
discussing the digitally remastered version of the movie by GNAA.
by that logic, everyone who uploads a file on Kazaa deserves a wiki entry..not notable. (come on, "digitally remastered" my ass, it's a vhs rip).

rolloffle[GNAA] K5 story http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/2/171117/8823

doesnt mention gnaa
I suppose this link is here because this story is (was?) mentioned in the GNAA article.
ahh i see, i take everything back, highly notable. /sarcasm
I don?t understand why you try to be sarcastic. These links were given as third party evidence of the claims in the article. Nothing to do with establishing notability here. Sam Hocevar 00:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

two hour radio show concerning the GNAA http://www.l0de.com/lrh/l0de%20radio%20hour%2015%20-%20Meet%20the%20GNAA!_upgrade.mp3

removed dead links, this one is >100M, so didnt check it out.

GNAA related to 4chan closure http://www.hentaiquest.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001215 http://www.ipedia.com/4chan.html

"What's GNAA?" says poster.
  1. GNAA

http://nullirc.net/status/

a list of IRC channels that your's happens to be on? anyone can start an IRC channel, not notable.
  • Comment -> At this point I would think someone would realize the validity of the VfD process simply isn't there. Being on it's 5th VfD, the users have already made a point about the article, and since nothing significant has changed, many people may simply be voting just to get rid of the VfD again, to 'make it go away' because they are now annoyed with the process, or they dislike the group. Both of those are not valid reasons to delete, as far as I know.
    • Seconded.
Oh come on, read the comments people have made, they're voting Keep because it has survived VfD. I think everyone here is intelligent enough to see how they've managed to survive (at least prior to this VfD), I won't question the validity of that, but let's not pretend anything deeper is going on, they've found a loophole in the VfD process and are exploiting it, they're not being persecuted.
  • I think the GNAA are being persecuted. Obviously, not by all, but definitely by some. For instance, witness Rdsmith4's remark (delete vote #13) above: "Delete as usual. Perhaps it would get rid of them.". Also, note The Anome's previously nominations to delete the article and heavyhanded replacement of it with a redirect – without giving any justification or explication. Suspicious behaviour for someone impartial, no? --Rolloffle 22:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm just curious as to the difference between a normal Delete vote and a "Strong delete" vote that some of the people here have used. --Rolloffle 22:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases. Basically, you use "strong" when you feel that deletion is supported by fundamental policy (i.e. "not deleting this would make Jimbo cry", or something equally dramatic). It is explicitly not a way to express your distaste for the article (or your appreciation when voting "strong keep"). JRM 09:01, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

I think it should be kept because: (Please don't take this seriously, I am providing mostly facts)

  • Notable enough (Opinion)
    • IRC channel exists (Fact)
    • Over 20,000 Google results using search quiery "Gay Nigger Association of America" (Fact)
    • Is reported by Slashdot ./ (Fact)
  • Am voting Keep because I have last time, repetitive VFD only makes me trust my instincts even more. (Opinion)
    • Repetitively VFDing this article only makes matters worse and go out of hand. This is the 4th or 5th time (According to some individuals) that this has gone under VFD. (Opinion)
  • Article is established and work have been added to it. (Fact)
    • If you are deleting the article, you are also deleting [2]. Which is almost 600 edits. (Fact)
  • There are heaps of non-notable things on Wikipedia (e.g. List of <insert obsecure>) etc. (? - Not sure)
    • If this article is VFDed, what about Internet Troll and every article in the Troll category.
  • It provides an in-depth article to complement the trolls category and the Troll article. See Category:Internet trolls. From: Squash 00:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes with questionable provenance

Please insert votes from suspected trolls, sockpuppets or new users here for peer review
Am I the only one who finds this new practice of listing all the votes you don't agree with as 'suspected trolls, sockpuppets or new users', implying that these votes are somehow less valid? What is the process for putting them back on the main list? Can I list users who I suspect of being trolls here too? Mark Richards 01:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Votes
  1. Keep, the GNAA is no less notable than Slashdot, of which they are an integral (if desirable) part. They're no less a vanity page than an entry about the Hell's Angels or the Mafia. I'd also like to add that this has passed through VfD unscathed four times before. This suggests that there isn't going to be a proper consensus to delete it. --Rolloffle 20:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User's second edit. Xezbeth 20:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
    And also a self-confessed member of the GNAA on the IRC Channel --BesigedB 20:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    This does not make him a sock puppet! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Both genuine edits, I'd like to point out. --Rolloffle 20:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Ack, s/desirable/undesirable/ --Rolloffle 22:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's particularly relevant. Denying me a vote because I claimed to be a GNAA member in an IRC channel is just as invalid as, say, denying Slashdotters from voting on a Slashdot-related VfD. (Which this is, now that I think about it.) --Rolloffle 22:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Keep. Their online existence is notable enough. ThunderWarrior 19:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User's first edit. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Keep. Do not let the delete voters get their way. Mookore 2005 22:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Keep it, you guys are stupid. If you delete their entry it will cause them to focus whatever energy to get it back out of the spirit for fun. Furthermore, if GNAA having an entry bothers you I suggest getting a life.
    Methinks there's a distinct scent of GNAAers in the air. Wyss 22:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Oh, a racist comment! Philip Nilsson 17:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I'm not a member of GNAA and have never trolled in my life.. however, I find some of their actions and the history behind them interesting and defiently notable. This whole voting system is off in the sense that you only consider people valid if they agree with your point and fit into the demograph of people who will agree with your point. It only takes a quick glance at GNAA history to see exactly what will happen to Wikipedia as a whole if this vote passes. To consider me a member of GNAA just because I believe censorship is wrong is a sign of total ignorance.
    And anti-GNAAers as well.
  5. Keep, They deserve to stay. -- Andrevam 01:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has one edit, and additionally tried to impersonate Andrevan.
  6. Keep. Wikipedia is about covering as many topics as we possibly can. There are many topics of similar (un)importance to the world. I'm not an editor, but not GNAA-member. They're primitive assholes, but they exist, hence their presence in the Wikipedia is obligatory once someone decided to write about them. --Lam 11:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Keep. It's an article. Why on earth would you delete an article? They are trolls, true, but I don't see Troll getting deleted... --Roguelazer 03:23, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
    User has fifteen edits.
    Account predates VfD by over a week. ElBenevolente 16:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Guys, I'm not a drone. Sorry to burst your bubble. Can you please put this back where it belongs? --Roguelazer 01:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Erm, this does belong here. You are a "new user", are you not? And your vote was questioned? Obviously the suspicions didn't pan out, so your vote counts like any other. This is not the "ignore these votes" section, or the "confirmed criminals" section. Also see my comments on Cwydian's vote. JRM 01:54, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  8. Keep. They keep underprivileged children like one 'Dikky' Hearties off the street, and gives me something to chuckle at when I'm feeling blue. --Jackson Q Brown III Dec 26, 2004
    I don't see why I got bumped just because I don't write/edit. I am a user, I should get a say!
  9. Keep People have a right to be informed! -PollTroll
    Comment not actually signed with a username. --Delirium 07:33, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Keep. Surviving 4 votes for deletion is a pretty impressive accomplishment. The Gay Nigger Association of America is an insperation to myself and internet trolls everywhere. Just because this group is not important in your life does not mean it isn't important. An example of another entry which is significant for some but irrelevent to others is homestar runner. Put me in the n00b section if you must but most of the "delete" votes seem to be coming from cranky people who take themselves waaay to seriously. Who else would vote for deletion on Christmas? --bit trollent 02:18, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
    User's first edit. Kosebamse 08:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    To clear up any misunderstandings, I have been a fan of this group since before this Wikipedia vote for deletion game existed. Their ability to survive votes for deletion is a demonstration of their prominance, but their true strength lies in their messege board trolling activites, particularly on Slashdot. Also this my be my first edit but I'm mostly here to say that the accusation that the GNAA is only notable among its own members is simply false. As a successfull trolling organization, its impact is felt by many, some of whome are inspired to become trolls themselves. --bit trollent 03:55, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Keep. Obviously it provides a source of information, gathered in one place, that isn't found elsewhere. Isn't this what an encyclopedia does? --SaturnSL1WNY 19:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Total of ten edits, all to GNAA pages or his user page. Kosebamse 20:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This user's creation predates this VfD. --216.24.174.245 00:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Keep Keep, theres a bit of gnaa in all of us. 03:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Posted by User:66.186.89.84. Rhobite 04:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Keep, assholes... but notable assholes. CranialNerves 21:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has very few edits (<50, all of them today). Neutralitytalk 21:25, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
    Well a few of them weren't, but still a 'very new user' I suppose. Xezbeth 21:27, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
    User's account predates VfD by several days. Sam Hocevar 01:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Keep, of course. While we're on the subject of "non-notable individuals/organizations", might as well delete all the "self-aggrandizing" user pages. --Timecop 20:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has very few edits, most from the last VfD of this page. Also a GNAA member, so expect the rest of them to show up soon. Xezbeth 20:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
    User account is 3 months old. Hardly a new user. Sam Hocevar 01:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. keep. It's a joke. It hurts no one. Leave it alone. --Osbojos 01:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has six edits.
    User account is 3 months old. Hardly a new user. Sam Hocevar 01:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User now has twelve edits and has even created at least one article. Sam Hocevar 10:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. Keep. Here we go again. -- Dv 07:58, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
    User has 19 edits total, three of which to this page. Kosebamse 08:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Account is over five months old. ElBenevolente 16:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    No reason given to suspect this account. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. keep. A fourth VfD is an abuse of itself. Yuckfoo 22:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has been a member less than a month.
    Additionally, appears to be removing and rearranging legitimate Delete votes from this page. Lots of edits to this vfd.
    that is a bald-face lie. only questionable votes have been rearranged. my user history otherwise speaks for itself. furthermore, it has been previously agreed upon on vfd talk that numbered voting is unacceptable. Yuckfoo 01:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has been a member more than a month. On this planet, months usually have 31 days or less. Also, user has more than 200 edits. Sam Hocevar 10:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    No reason given to suspect this account. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This user's creation predates this VfD. --216.24.174.245 00:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    No reason given to suspect this account. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. Keep. Notable. --Nasrallah 01:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has less than 25 edits, almost all top project pages and Arbcom pages. Neutralitytalk 17:07, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Account predates VfD by over two weeks. ElBenevolente 17:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    No reason given to suspect this account. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. Keep. How many VfDs are there to come? stop listing this, if there have been numerous decisions to keep it here! --Musschrott 16:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has less than 50 edits. Neutralitytalk 17:10, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Please stop removing people who vote differently to you. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Account is over five months old. ElBenevolente 17:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    So what if they have less than 50 edits? Removing valid votes is extremely disturbing. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  20. Keep They are notable; there's even an article concerning them on plastic.com (http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=04/10/06/05263410) Vetta2 17:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User has less than 50 edits. Neutralitytalk 17:16, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    Account is over two months old. ElBenevolente 17:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    On what grounds was this vote removed? Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete Votes
  1. Delete, This entry is a waste of space. Cwydian 23:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User:Cwydian has 2 edits.
  2. Delete Let's just let it die already. --Angafirith 22:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I moved this to the 'very new user' area. I have made a few edits in the past (before I made an account), but I am still new to Wikipedia. --Angafirith 23:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    User:Angafirith has 2 edits. [3]
  3. Delete. I am the guy who keeps redirecting the article back to Slashdot Trolling Phenomena, and I say let's get rid of this nonsense once and for all! 82.39.115.87 01:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Anonymous votes are not counted on VfDs. ugen64 06:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Anon votes are counted on VFD unless there there is "strong evidence of bad faith". For the relevant policy see: Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Paul August ☎ 21:02, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
    Yeah. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. Mikkalai 01:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    For the record, this user has been blocked at least three times for vandalising the GNAA article. Sam Hocevar 10:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Delete and make an Arbcom case against Users who support and promote a troll organization's entry as an encyclopedic reference. -Silly bogus user name 05:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    First post by this guy. Mod parent down. --SPUI 05:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Delete They don't deserve to live let alone have an article GNAA Sucks 01:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    This is the user's first edit. --fvw* 01:12, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  6. Delete Vanity page; suggest redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena or similar. Note that even if the VfD is successful they will almost certainly attempt a further action against Wikipedia.
    Anon 211.27.37.163 vote stricken out. Mikkalai 01:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=8877651"