Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAJ

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:35, Jan. 27, 2006

GAJ[edit]

Google has no hits,non notable, the title is very close to the first part of the authors user name so it's most likely a vanity.

Delete as nominator.--Dakota ~ ε 08:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa whoa, It isn't vanity or anything of the sort. This is simply to establish GAJ's history and ecetera as it's believed on some sites to be a symbol of video gamer rights. Try the link. GAJ is very populated. And...The reason you can't find any hits on it is because it's on an invisionfree server. It is also widely talked about on GameFAQS, at least on the boards it originated in. Just give it a chance. --User: GAJ Snake 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Right, it's just to show what GAJ is, to those who are curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead Decoy (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 January 2006

113 Google hits means not notable to me. No-one is talking about it anywhere else, so why should anyone read about it here? Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all blogs, forums, and messageboard articles, unless they are extraordinarily influential like Groklaw or Slashdot. Ruby 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google won't bring up GameFAQs posts, which is the main reason it gets so low hits. People on the gamefaqs boards talk about it alot (I've found over 40 topics about GAJ on it since last month, but gamefaqs started deleting them for being off topic) Look, it's a symbol of freedom for all peoples, and that not all boards are like gamefaqs and full of corruption and trolls. It stands for something; it has moral value to the people who know what it is. It has a STORY behind it's creation, not like syndicated boards like gamefaqs. But alot of people on GameFaqs still don't know "what a gaj is" so I'm making this page just to educate people on it. It may not be a huge, famous board, but I think alot of people could learn from it. Just give it one chance. What've you got to lose? --User: GAJ Snake 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. We do not "give a chance" to anyone. The rules are clear, there can exist no deliberate exceptions. Delete, sayeth the Wikipedia Inquisition, and lo, it was so. --Agamemnon2 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agamemnon2, sometimes the AfD process is traumatic to new users, this kind of rhetoric only makes it worse for them. Ruby 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? I'm not a therapist. If they can't cope, they shouldn't have posted an article in the first place. --Agamemnon2 12:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 128 registered members, not on its own domain, created by member or owner (per WP:BAI. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I say keep. The site is a good one, and from what people are saying, it has a good and interesting history. It might even give them some members to help their cause, which they are trying their best to fight for. Its the case of David vs Goliath, and would you side with Goliath?220.236.118.182 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Adam Shields[reply]

Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a stickler mod gets many people angry and does no good. It's not as if Wikipedia doesn't have room for this site. These guys seem to have a good, cause, and Snake is right: it has a personal story. I think it should stay here and perhaps be merged with the article "Jack Thompson" so as to educate Wikipedia users. -Saint Shade

Keep. If You take into account popular web forums that don't show their posts on Google and the sort, you would have alot more than the said number of hits. Who said that everybody has to rely on Google? And besides, if this is in violation, I know of a few others that should be long gone, but are still here. Well, thats my two cents at least. ~Tim Kowalenko

Keep. Ok. So if you guys don't like it, give a reason other than google. This article is more or less about fighting against Jack Thompson's ideals of banning video games. It nullifies the first amendment, and if you delete this, then whats the point of the bill of rights? Keep it. BTW, GAJ is barely starting out small, like every other site, so, if you had banned those articles about web-sites and other things of that sort, then you've basically eliminated a source on how to relate to todays' society.-mothman47

keepWhat's wrong with it?

Delete The article is sloppy, we don't need a list of everyone who posted on a message board. This article is just people from that board patting each other on the back!

!!!KEEP! There isn't another group like this. The nit-picking because of the users' names is ridiculous. They offer a collective voice which differs from other forums. They're a great group of gamers aged 13 to 20-something, with the exception of a few older and one who is a gaming grandmother. They beg for more parental control and have always wanted to educate "soccer moms" and others who have misconceptions about violent video games. Great bunch, it would be a pity to delete this. Stop being so damn anal! ~~maluka

M

Keep. Let the page be fixed up a bit, let them make a full attempt. What's it going to hurt if it stays up? -Steph

keep. They aren't hurting anything by having it up here. - IU2002

Ok, now that it's been cleaned up and the "users" section is cleared, is it really biased enough to warrant a Point of View warning? --User: GAJ Snake 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- No harm is done haveing it... and it could be of use...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.