Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (4th nomination)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Majority keep but no consensus, defaulting to keep --SPUI (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As an administrator, I confirm that this debate indeed should have been closed as a keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Note: I will not be voting, merely administering this vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

The GNAA site is seen by many as not notable, and not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. There have been numerous VfDs submitted, however each one has had irregularities. In a final effort to put the whole thing to rest, I am submitting this article to VfD one last time. I am dividing up the page into 5 sections: Delete, Keep, Redirect, Comments and Disqualified votes. Usually we do not place these into sections due to limitations of VfD, however an exception will be made for this article, mainly due to its controversial nature.

No sock-puppets, anonymous users or very new users will have their votes counted in this VfD. To make this the final GNAA VfD, if you had less than 100 edits as of the time you submit your vote then your vote will not be counted. This is to stop people from gaming the system and to stop sock puppets from voting. Further, comments that are seen to be personal attacks will be deleted immediately by any admin not participating in the vote. However as per VFD policy, all logged in users are able to cast their vote, even if they do not meet our desired 100 edit limit. Please note that though the users may cast their vote, if they do not fulfill the criteria they will be moved to disqualified votes and their vote will not be counted.

One last comment. VfD is decided by consensus to delete. The vote is not counted by a straight 50/50 split, where the side who gets greater than 50% of the vote "wins" (I shudder at this term). Deletion will only occur if there are around 70% of the votes to delete.

Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

• Amendments Gmaxwell 22:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC) and Mrfixter 01:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Reverted to original guidelines. Fuzheado | Talk 23:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC) and by Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ammended ammendments by Gmaxwell. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• I strongly object to construing discounted to mean not counted. That is simply not what the word means. it means valued less, not valued zero. Paul August ☎ 04:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you'd prefer "disqualified"? Xoloz 08:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Er... how is disqualification any less of a term than discounting? Disqualification means that their vote is not valid also. Just a point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
        • 'Disqualification' makes reference to a set of rules, whereas 'discounting' denotes a disbelief or disregard of the vote (or opinion) entirely, as innacurate or irrelevant, detracts from it? Seeaxid 05:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, that's a good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete

1. Not encyclopedic. Vanity/promo. Never belonged on Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
2. Delete They revel in their badness, but it does not render them more notable. Denni☯ 2005 July 8 03:53 (UTC)
3. Not encyclopedic; very narrow notability, if any; troll vanity. Wikiepedia is not desperate enough for material to justify their inclusion. --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
4. Not encyclopedic, troll vanity. P.S. You have no authority to discount votes, but in case it matters to someone, I only switched from Alex12_3 a day or two ago, hence the low edit count on this account. --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

   I do. I am an administrator not taking part in the vote. If you have a concern about this, please take it to WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)

   Good enough for me, see edited comment. --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)

   P.S. this user's vote is legitimate. Not to be discounted. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)

5. Delete. Slightly less notable than a Pokemon. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
6. Delete. --Alterego July 8, 2005 04:10 (UTC)
7. Delete Thanks,
   Luc "Somethingorother" French 8 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
8. Delete Internet vandalism does not make one notable. Wikipedia should not be abused to promote vandalism. --FOo 8 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
9. Delete. Wikipedians have heard of them because they're here. That doesn't make them notable in the world at large. If being well-known on Wikipedia made something notable, we should have articles on User:RickK, User:Cecropia, User:Wik, and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I'm not suggesting anyone write those, by the way. Isomorphic 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
10. Delete. Non-notable troll group. jni 8 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
11. delete: Rules are often made simply as an excuse to make examples of those who break them; nevertheless, natural laws (immutable or not), dictating such things as 'do not feed the trolls', cannot simply be abandoned. Ombudsman 8 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)
12. Delete. Who? (SEWilco 8 July 2005 08:08 (UTC))
13. Delete —Sean κ. + 8 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
14. Delete. Not notable. Let's get some perspective here. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)
15. Delete. Unnoteable. -- Arwel 8 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
16. Delete. Some guy(s) (?) in a basement. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
17. Delete. Their trolling as evidence of "notability" is equivalent to massive self-promotion. They're only remotely notable for their Apple computer gimmick; that information could be stored elsewhere. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
18. Delete or redirect to Feces - Trolls are not notable at all. --Phroziac (talk) 8 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

    personal attack by 208.180.177.33 removed

19. Delete or cleanup. I don't think trolls deserve that much server space, if at all. --Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 8 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)
20. Delete vanity, forum trivia CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
21. Delete as per Isomorphic. --Tabor 8 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
22. Delete These people barely make an impact on Slashdot (where they are modded into oblivion) or in here (where they are reverted). They have made no lasting impact on anything. Either delete or merge with some article listing trolling groups. — Olathe 8 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
23. Delete Eliot 8 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
24. Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
25. Delete. The page does not establish notability of this group. Vanity. The threshold for inclusion for computer and internet related issues, especially internet groups should be higher than for other pages, since (a) proponents of such pages are more likely to round up support on the web and (b) the self-selection of Wikipedia editors from internet circles inevitably leads to bias in favor of articles (Pokemon pages, GNAA etc.) which would never be considered encyclopedic if they discussed similar details in other fields. Martg76 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
26. Delete. Not notable outside of Slashdot and a few other places trolls frequent. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
27. Delete. The only reason they are of interest is because they are disruptive trolls. I know it won't be deleted, but that's just a sign of one of the key weaknesses of Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 9 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
    • One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that you can have a fair take on every human subject, even if it offends you, all under the same roof. Fuzheado | Talk 9 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. What I meant to say is that they are of interest only because they are trolling here for the purpose of calling attention to themselves. (Besides, encouraging destructive assholes is not necessarily in the best interest of Wikipedia.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 9 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)
        • Wish to point out that this is not correct: the GNAA are not just of interest because they are trolling Wikipedia. Firstly, considering their entire purpose for existence, the GNAA have been remarkably restrained when it comes to this site (I have seen what they do to other website). Though they have vandalised the odd article, they have mostly focussed their attention on the Gay Nigger Association of America article. The GNAA are notable because they faked OS X screenshots, have been a significant subculture on Slashdot, and have crapflooded, trolled and generally been malevolent on many websites and community forums. They also have their own IRC server, have a radio show (TrollTalk), a website, a crapflooding script and a growing user base. I don't like them, but they are notable for things other than what they do on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
          • Glad to at least clear things up that you are not biased. BTW, in what other case has having a website, an IRC server, or having written a script been considered notable? None. (And if they have a "radio show", it isn't even important enough to list in their own article.) If this were any other group other than these guys you seem to admire, you would laugh them right off of the site. I would not be having such a problem with this if it wasn't so blatently ridiculous and two-faced. - Marvin01 | talk 9 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
            • I do try. Would argue that all those things establishes that they are an organised group and that this helps to establish their notability. The fact that they are a well-know and organised group that performs trolling and crapflooding make them notable. This is disputed, and one of the reasons for the VfD. In fact, it was established in the previous 5 VfDs that this is a notable enough reason to keep the article, but something has always happened to make someone object. Do not wish to say any more as I am administering this vote and as such not actually voting. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
            • Quick note: It's the l0de Radio Hour, and I *did* add it to the article, but it got removed at some point; not sure why. As soon as it was linked from the GNAA article, it was added to VfD (kept, I might add; don't bother trying it again). It's produced by a member and is *not* an official GNAA project. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Ich July 9, 2005 10:26 (UTC)
28. Delete. Non-notable group of undistinguished malcontents. Fire Star 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
29. Delete non notable promotion/advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
30. Delete. It's quite amusing that some votes to keep use the fact that it's previously survived VfD as the primary, or sole, means of verifying its supposed notability. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 04:16 (UTC)
31. Delete. Voting again delete. Non notable group outside a few blogs and even on them its not greatly notable.kaal 9 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)
32. Delete no evidence of notability. They have their own website for promoting themselves. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Friday 9 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
33. Delete, although it's probably hopeless. As far as I can tell, this group is only really notable on Wikipedia, and then only because of the number of interminable deletion debates. Trolls are depressingly commonplace. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:03, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
34. Delete. At first I thought they were notable, but then I started asking geeks that have nothing to do with wikipedia about them, and even those who regularly read slashdot, and they knew nothing about GNAA. The google test also is quite clear, not even 1000 results.. So they are only notable because they trolled us. Isn't that some kind of original research then? ;-P --Conti|✉ 22:16, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Might be because they (sensibly) don't read comments at -1 on slashdot. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 11:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

35. Delete nonsesnse. Elfguy 05:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
36. Delete Doesn't seem very notable, even at slashdot. Klonimus 06:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
37. Delete NN, sub-group of Slashdot, does not make notable. See my entire reasoning here. <>Who?¿? 11:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
38. Delete Geni 12:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
39. Delete. Not notable, and as with many street gangs / subcultures impossible to verify or write about authoritatively. For what it's worth, I'd never heard of them until I started editing Wikipedia, despite being on the internet for over a decade. Article should be removed; all supposed GNAA trolls or accounts removed on sight. Why don't you fight back, instead of inviting this kind of assault? Do you enjoy being hurt?-Ashley Pomeroy 17:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    What assault exactly? What have they actually done to us?Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

40. Delete Vanity, non-notable, hard to verify. Nobody talks about this stuff offline. Do not feed the trolls. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:09, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
41. Delete. Not particularly notable, as far as I am aware; they would like to think of themselves as such, but that is beside the point.--NicholasTurnbull 03:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
42. Delete. Non-notable, vanity, etc., etc. tregoweth 23:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
43. Delete this. Not only that, but Slashdot trolling phenomena and Trolltalk should be merged into Slashdot. Astute users will note that my very first edit was a vote to delete this article; my reasoning remains the same and applies to the other trolling articles as well: no potential to be encyclopedic. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 03:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

    And Slashdot is encyclopedic? If people want to know what Slashdot is, they can visit the website. It's not really necessary to have an article on every fucking website. And while we're at it, why don't we remove all of the User pages? Those aren't very encyclopedic, now are they? (preceding unsigned comment by GNAA member 82.165.244.16)

    The User pages are in a different namespace from the main encyclopedia and are unrelated; they don't figure into this particular debate. As for the website, Slashdot is more encyclopedic than, say, Something Awful. The latter is encyclopedic, but should only have about one page of description, without any subpages. I would be fine with all subpages about Slashdot being merged into Slashdot, too. Then there are websites like Space Tree. I enjoy that cartoon, but it is not encyclopedic. Personally, I think that the best solution to this problem would be to put the in-depth detail about these various sites into a separate wiki, i.e. a Wikicity. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 21:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

44. Delete - trolling vanity group that promotes itself playing the wikipedia system. Keeping their own server etc. is tantamout to get a vanity press to publish a book about you to make you notable. However, considering that they might have registered as WP members long ago, this vote is likely to fail anyway - Skysmith 11:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Well certainly quite a few registered ages ago. However many of them are still not able to vote because of the 100 edit limit. There are only a handful of GNAA members who are able to vote, and the overwhelming majority of keep votes are from regular wikipedians who are not GNAA members. If the article fails to be deleted it is down to wikipedians , not GNAA members. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

45. Delete. We shouldn't satisfy attention-seekers. -- Natalinasmpf 15:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
46. I have posted on Slashdot & I have a webpage, so do I get a Wikipedia article too? Been reading /. for at least 4 years & never heard of them there. Only apparent notability is their astounding success in getting Wikipedia to waste time, so maybe that's enough. I suppose Willy on Wheels should have an article too then. Wolfman 15:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
47. Delete. I do not believe they are noteworthy enough outside of Wikipedia. I will, however, not vote in any future VFDs on this, should they survive. Enough is enough. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 15:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
48. Delete. How the hell this has survived here this long I'll never know. You're not meant to feed the trolls, leaving this around -is- --Kiand 16:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
49. Delete. Not notable. The result of the first VfD was an overwhelming delete (something like 18 delete to 3 keep), but the admin that closed that VfD never deleted the page. The GNAA has had a hand in every VfD that came after. Almafeta 21:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    How did the GNAA "have a hand" in this VfD? Most of the members' votes were disqualified. Having been trolled by the GNAA in the past is no reason for bias on Wikipedoia. Pigger 21:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Their primary claim to fame is having successfully trolled Wikipedia to have created a page about themselves. It's not bias; they're simply not notable. Almafeta 22:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    I've personally disqualified loads of them. If the page survives this vote it will be because of Wikipedians not GNAA members Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Where did you read what is their primary claim to fame? The OS X x86 hoax easily outfames any Wikipedia troll, I have trouble imagining why they would primarily brag about having trolled Wikipedia (except for the purpose of trolling, in which case YHBT). Sam Hocevar 23:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    It is painfully obvious that this person hasn't even read the article he/she is voting on. Pigger

    This is a blatant lie. As far as I can remember, delete votes have never outnumbered keep votes on a GNAA VfD. Sam Hocevar 01:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Sam don't forget to assume good faith. Perhaps they simply miscounted the votes rather than lie about them. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

50. Delete Trolling wikipedia does not make you notable nor should it be rewarded by having a place in this great encyclopedia. Arm 01:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    While I certainly agree that the notability of the group is an issue, I'm not sure if excluding a topic from Wikipedia simply (not considering notability of course) for its nature, would abide by NPOV. Seeaxid 03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    If you were going to make a heirachy of important site policies, notability and Wikipedia:No original research would come before NPOV policy. We are an encyclopedia, and only articles considered to be notable in their sphere of influence will be included in our project. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    But my comment was dominantly in response to the independent second clause (indicated by the nor): "[... ] nor should it be rewarded [for trolling] by having a place in this great encyclopedia." I had only intended to acknowledge the first clause, but to criticise the second, and did not interpret any allusions to notability in this second member of the propositon. Seeaxid 04:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    My head hurts... Ta bu shi da yu 04:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

51. delete. perfect example of our flawed perception of 'notability'. what's notable in WP: namespace is not necessarily notable in article namespace. But a redirect to slashdot trolling phenomena would also do (no vfd required!). Anyway, I don't lose sleep over this. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
52. We STILL got this? Sigh. The article is well-written, but it's pith, if you know what I mean. The heart of it is basically a rewording of what I'd find on their own site, and the references/history is likely proudly paraded there. I really don't see what we're offering readers that their site is not. Garrett^Talk 10:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
53. Delete Not notable, this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wackymacs 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comment Removing this would be contrary to the very essence which Wikipedia thrives on. This is information about something; even if you guys haven't heard about, find it offensive or "not notable" it does not mean that it's not "worthy" of being on Wikipedia. All information is worthy of being here. Havok 16:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    That's not true. Our most fundamental policy is NPOV. Information has to be written about neutrally. In order to do that it has to be verifyable, it has to be able to be written about by anyone. Non notable topics that are not verifyable cannot go in. I'm not saying this is true of the GNAA website, I'm just pointing out that not all info is worthy of an article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    But if it's deleted it has no chance of being verified. Does Wikipedia rely on the use of ex. Google when verifying it's articles? Who are anyone to decide what type of information is worthy being keept or not? All information is worthy collection, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about, collection and sharing all information in existence. I feel deleting something because of notes like "Vanity", "Non noteable" is wrong on all accounts. Even if YOU don't like it, or you find the information to be stupid, that does NOT mean that someone won't find a use for it. Even if only one person finds anything informational, that one person should be taken into account. Removing something is killing the flow of information, which really is a shame. Havok 17:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Bravo! Wiki charta non est, innit. Ninuor 22:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

54. Delete. It is unwise to reward a group of people who, even if they were notable (they're not), would only be notable for being assholes. --Mr. Billion 20:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, let's remove Adolf Hitler and Ku Klux Klan while we are at it. They are both articles about assholes and they should not be "rewarded". Havok 21:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Sarcasm is unnecessary. One difference you might note is that Adolph Hitler and the KKK are both entities of historic significance. A clan of Internet trolls, on the other hand, exists solely as a kind of memetic cancer. Their purpose is to incite a reaction and make an impression, and giving them a "legacy" on Wikipedia is like feeding them. They feed on attention. Their presence on this Wiki is the only reason most people here know about them, and the very controversy that has brought a lot of new voters to the deletion page paradoxically is the reason why a lot of people are voting in favor of its notability. That is unfortunate reasoning, since agitation about a group devoted to creating agitation is only to be expected. I've also noticed somebody soliciting "Keep" votes in Wikipedia Chat, and that is also unfortunate. --Mr. Billion 07:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    Yet the response to your vote was made irrespective of notability (in terms of verifiability), similarly as you had indicated was your vote by this little statement here: "even if they were notable", suggesting that you would still advocate the deletion of the article if the topic had sufficient verifiability (from your perspective of course). What you fail to realise is that the vociferous and continual opposition (and thus attention) displayed by some towards the existence of this article contributes more to "giving them a "legacy" on Wikipedia", than leaving it forgotten in a corner, such that your own vote, and manner of doing so, one could say, did more harm for your cause than good. Seeaxid 08:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    My point is that it does not deserve even a dusty corner. Simply being an idiot on the Internet doesn't make one notable. And yes, it is true that the conflict of opinion related to the deletion gives them more attention than they deserve, but either side can as easily blame the other for prolonging the conflict. "If it weren't for you guys, this wouldn't be an issue." Mr. Billion 17:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

55. Delete --Hedley 20:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep

1. An interesting phenomenon, non-notability notwithstanding. I'd say, keep.--Ezhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 8, 2005 03:27 (UTC)
2. A mildly irritating lot who puff themselves up to much more significance than they'll ever have, but they're notable enough for a Wikipedia article. — Dan | Talk 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
3. Precedent has been set. --Golbez July 8, 2005 03:57 (UTC)
4. Annoying, but notable. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
5. Keep so long as they change their name to reflect that their membership is not exclusively American.-gadfium 8 July 2005 03:59 (UTC) The condition is of course invalid in such a vote. I got no one telling me this, so I must suck at trolling. The Keep vote stands.-gadfium 22:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Keep, highly notable, and precedent has been set... multiple times! 24.19.27.32 8 July 2005 03:59 (UTC) <--- This vote was by me, BTW. CAPS LOCK 8 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

   Vote is to be kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)

7. Keep Notability as evidenced by IRC response to this VfD: "somebody listed GNAA for VfD? this isn't gonna be pretty" Clearly this article and the phenomenon that it represents is notable within Wikipedia... the question is: is meta-notability notable? I say yes. -Harmil 8 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)-
8. Keep Peverse, bizarre, neo-fascistic, anti-social and in some areas illegal. A 50 person protest group which disrupts major media infrastructure (/.) is notable. Hell, we have articles on miniscule Trotskyite and Anarchist groups for the same reasons. Fifelfoo 8 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
   • We do? --Jacj 8 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
     • Symbionese Liberation Army Red Army Fraction Red Brigades Angry Brigade BUGAUP Adbusters etc Fifelfoo 8 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
       • Oh, cool. Still, I'd say that Adbusters are much more well known than the GNAA. Plus, as far as I know, the GNAA hasn't killed anyone. --Jacj 8 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)
9. Keep A notable group known across the internet for being... themselves. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 8 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
10. Keep once again. --SPUI (talk) 8 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)
11. Keep -If they are notorious, other web communities would want to know about them to be on the alert or protect themselves. So what if they just want attention. --Jondel 8 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)
12. Keep - Notable enough, even if it is unfortunate. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
13. Keep - As a widespread Internet phenomenon, GNAA has a better claim to notability than any of the squillions of schools that are routinely kept. Like, say, Barret Traditional Middle School. There's no Wikipedia:GNAAwatch, though. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

    Yes, and as a school, Barret Traditional Middle School has a better claim to notability that the GNAA. Not sure this is a valid comparison. Your vote is valid, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

    Regrammarized ;) --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

14. Keep - Weird stuff, but we have a page for NAMBLA so why not GNAA? Redwolf24 8 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
15. I do hope this is the last time! Keep. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)
16. Keep. I've watched this article for a while now and it's only improved. This is a pretty interesting troll organization, and though some say we shouldn't feed the trolls, if the trolls are notable (if only on Slashdot) then they should be mentioned here. —shoecream July 8, 2005 05:58 (UTC)
17. Keep for third time (from me), notable troll organization. --Angr/_{tOk t@ mi} 8 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)
18. Keep - Relevant, I've personally looked this page up to see what the deal with GNAA is. StuartH 8 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

    Apologies to StuartH, I misread Kate's tool. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

19. I really wish I could vote otherwise, but Keep, as I cannot honestly call them non-notable. Xoloz 8 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
20. Keep. See you next month for a new VfD! Sam Hocevar 8 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
21. Keep - I object to the way this vote is being run. I'm an administrator too - doesn't give me the right to change the rules either. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
22. Keep as notable internet phenomenon. Can we please settle this once and for all. David | Talk 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)
23. Keep. It's amazing how everyone is talking about this "non notable" group. I don't like em, but will NEVER vote to censor them. Moriori July 8, 2005 09:09 (UTC)
    • Nobody is censoring anybody. This is not a forum for public speech. Are you saying that no topics should be excluded at all? -- Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
      • No-one is censoring them, yet, but note this is the sixth attempt. Deleting mention of this group here would be censorship. The article is encyclopedic, well presented, and factual as far as I can determine. Forum for public speech? Who said it was? It is a forum for presenting unembellished and unbiased factual details about interesting, influential (etc) things, groups, people (etc). Do I say no topics should be excluded at all. No, I've voted before to delete items. However, if an article such as this is cannned, because someone doesn't like it, then stand by for the avalanche of people deleting articles they don't like.Moriori 00:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
24. Keep purely on principle that I don't like the arbitrary restructuring of VfD rules. Proto t c 8 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)
25. keep Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)
26. Keep, articles like this are what makes Wikipedia interesting. -- grm_wnr Esc 8 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)
27. Keep, again. ElBenevolente 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
28. Strong keep: Fairly notable, if only for their role in disseminating Gay Niggers from Outer Space. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)
29. Keep, although I am no longer an active member. Goat-see 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

    Admin decision: vote to be kept, has more than 100 edits. Won't penalise this editor because they no longer actively contribute. Despite the username, Goat-see has reverted vandalism on at least one occasion, this shows that they are editing constructively. They have contributed to other articles: I can see a copyedit on Incompatible Timesharing System, and they have actually edited Gay Nigger Association of America. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

30. Strong keep: Notable. Trolling along with goatse is a cultural phenomenon induced be the feeling on anonymity of large groups of people on the internet, allowing them to freely express what they couldn't around their peers in real life. Incognito 8 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
    • Then there should be an article about that phenomenon, not individual articles based on every single incident. - Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
31. Keep. It could easily be established that a reasonable number of people care about the subject. (since you tend to care when you're annoyed.) If you think the article is self-promoting, edit it or clean it up or something, but don't delete it just because you happen to dislike what it's about. Maadio 8 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

    Admin decision: I am going to allow this vote. Suggest that Maadio create a user page to remove the red link in his signature. When I checked Maadio's edit count, this vote was his 100th edit on Wikipedia. User shows good faith edits, however, and so this is the reason I am counting the vote. Had Maadio had any less edits, however, I would not have counted this. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)

32. Keep. I don't agree with what they do, but when I started reading Slashdot, I was highly confused at all the references, and the Wikipedia article was handy in explaining the phenomenon. -Fuzzy 8 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
33. Keep. Six VfDs is utterly absurd. After 2 or 3 attempts it's time to let go. We shouldn't relist something every six months when some random editor gets a bee in his bonnet about it. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
34. Strong speedy Keep Because it has survived 5 vfd's already and this is just stupid. . I will complain about abuse of admin powers if this is deleted. Falphin 8 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

    If there is a clear consensus to delete, admins will delete. If there is not, admins will not delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

35. Keep. We all hate the GNAA, but they exist, and therefore need an article. Nadavspi | talk 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
36. Keep for god's sake. What has VfDing this article ever accomplished? Ghost Freeman | Talk 8 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
37. Keep. GNAA is hated, but Wikipedia article is handy in explaining the phenomenon, and therefore we need the article. As stated earlier. Feydey 8 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
38. Keep. The name is awful, but they've raised enough hell to be clearly notable. We can't change reality to suit our tastes. Leave it up. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

    The name is actually quite clever. You can't insult them by calling them gay, niggers, or americans. At least that's my take on it. Ghost Freeman ^{T | E} / _{C | D} 02:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

39. Keep. Notable, unfortunately. --Tothebarricades July 8, 2005 22:41 (UTC)
40. Keep. Meets notability threshold. Interesting read. Somebody wanting to know more about them would succeed if they came to Wikipedia. That's the point of Wikipedia, is it not? Tobycat 8 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
41. Ub3r keep. Ketsuban (is 1337) 8 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
42. Keep. Notable enough, and interesting cultural phenomenon. - Naive cynic 9 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
43. Keep Paraphrasing - I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it. Voltaire, I believe. I may disagree with the organization, but I also disagree with the KKK, but they are noteworthy enough for an article. Even if it was isolated to Slashdot, I would still say keep it. It's informative. --Barista | a/k/a MaI6KeRu | T/C 9 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)
44. Mild keep. If it was under another name it wouldn't be under VfD (imho). Needs a big rewrite though to stop it from being a vanity piece. Don't subscribe to not-notable theory. Who's ever heard of half the "random page" clicks? -- Tomhab 9 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
45. Strong Keep. Where else is there reliable and relatively unbiased information on the GNAA? I notice this is getting a whole lot of votes for a 'non-notable' subject. Also see Google Search for "OSX x86 hoax"--TexasDex July 9, 2005 03:35 (UTC)

    Attention Admin No offense to anyone, but this appears to be a duplicate vote with vote 10, Keep. Xoloz 9 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

    Sorry. That was my bad, I don't know how I did that. I have struck my other vote from the page.--TexasDex July 9, 2005 14:14 (UTC)

    I will move that the discounted vote section. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you. I am re-inserting this vote (and ensuing discussion) after it was improperly removed by Theresa knott [1]. The duplicate vote had already been dealt with and action on her part was entirely unnecessary. My duplicate vote (around number 10) was moved to the discounted votes section by Ta bu shi da yu. I fail to see why she deleted this vote completely instead of moving it to the disqualified section. I have also noted this on the user's talk page.--TexasDex 06:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

46. Keep -- ditto Fernando Rizo and TexasDex. ♥Purplefeltangel 9 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
47. Extreme lesbian keep. VfD is too slow, we have to go into LUDICROUS VFD! —RaD Man (talk) 9 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)
48. Keep and institute a maximum frequency limit for the VfD process or just exempt this article since I don't see it being an issue anywhere else. Ich July 9, 2005 10:40 (UTC)
49. Keep again, still notable since the last vfd a week ago. I agree that this article should have a special exemption from VfD, or at least limit the amount of VfDs it gets to one a year. --Mrfixter 9 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)
50. I have spilled hot grits all over my pants. Thank you. and 'KEEP'. Project2501a 9 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)
51. Keep. Article has content and tells me something about a subject I was not aware of. Facts in it do not seem to be generally disputed(?) And perhaps most of all, anything which has had so many goes at deleting it seems to deserve to stay. At least until the events mentioned have had time to date, and with historical hindsight can be better judged as notable or not.Sandpiper 9 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
52. Keep. Well known and notable. --Tokek 9 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
53. Keep. Give it up already. This is getting ridiculous. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)
54. Keep. Rhobite 20:16, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
55. Keep and begin issuing 24 hour blocks to users who disrupt wikipedia by VFDing this article over and over again. Gmaxwell 20:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
56. Keep. It pains me to vote this way, but while the subject may be detestable, it does seem to be real and (at least within a certain context), notable. I am opposed to book banning, I might as well be opposed to wikipedia subject banning. I cringe at the idea that we might someday see this on the front page as a featured article, however. RoySmith 22:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well get ready for it (and the ensuing fireworks), because it will probably happen within 24 hours of this VfD finishing. See the page well underway at: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America. Fuzheado | Talk 23:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Please notes that this has been removed from FAC (by myself). If VfD is to keep, then I will submit to FAC. Please note that this will never hit the main page. A featured article does not necessarily mean that it is a valid candidate for the main page, it only means that the article is of high enough quality to be counted as "featured". - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
57. Keep After filtering out Wikipedia mirrors and things with names like the Guilford Native American Association and Greater Nashville Auburn Association, I'm getting about 21,000 google hits, which I have to admit is far less than I thought there would be. Nevertheless, it's primarily about verifiability plus WP:NPOV, baring in mind what Wikipedia is not. The average Wikipedian who has been around long enough can personally verify the existence of the group as a very real phenomenon. I am always in favor of supporting merges, where two smaller articles can reasonable become one very good larger article, but that would not be the appropriate case here. GNAA is a larger article, filled with verifiable information. I don't like rewarding these pathetic childish idiots any more than anyone else, but the encyclopedic worthiness of the article is entirely in line with Wikipedia standards. func(talk) 04:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    In response to: " The average Wikipedian who has been around long enough can personally verify the existence of the group as a very real phenomenon."

    But then again, Isomorphic made this comment above: "[...] Wikipedians have heard of them because they're here. That doesn't make them notable in the world at large. If being well-known on Wikipedia made something notable, we should have articles on User:RickK, User:Cecropia, User:Wik, and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I'm not suggesting anyone write those, by the way. Isomorphic 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)" .

    Seeaxid 06:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    I understood the sentence you answered as a proof of existence, not a proof of notability (which was also discussed, but elsewhere). Sam Hocevar 16:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

58. Keep. Recommend someone starts Wikipedia:10 GNAA VfD nominations pool. CXI 04:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Done. —RaD Man (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

59. Keep. Repulsive, but notable. Columbia 15:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
60. Keep. Notable organisation that through their extensive trolling is creating an incentive for people to create more trolling-resistant systems. Jacoplane 17:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
61. Keep It's very important that NPOV fact-based articles exist about controversial subjects, Wikipedia is perfect for this. CheekyMonkey 21:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
62. Keep -- J3ff 21:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
63. Keep --TJive 22:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
64. Keep. past precedents have proved this is a waste of time. merely not hearing of them is not grounds for non notability Adamn 8 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
65. Good article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
66. Keep. Worthwhile enough. VfD nominations are turning into a unnecessary carnival of trolls. --Slowking Man 23:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
67. Keep. Call me liberal, but this group seems to continually attack a large portion of the internet. Keeping it here will fulfill an important purpose of Wikipedia: Reference. If my site were to be attacked by the GNAA and I had no clue who they were, I could go to to Wikipedia and read about what I was dealing with. -newkai | talk | contribs 00:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
68. Sorry, Ta bu. Keep. Andre (talk) 01:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

    For the record (and this is not a vote!!!), I voted keep on each of the previous VfDs. No need to apologise. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

69. Keep. Listing this is disrupting Wikipedia. Please stop doing it. Grace Note 02:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
70. Keep. This is getting silly. I hope this really is the last vote we have on this. Paul August ☎ 04:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
71. Keep. See Newkai. Ucucha|... 07:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
72. Keep. They're obviously notable if they attract this much attention. The article is quite lengthy, quite detailed, and is not in and of itself a troll. I also strongly agree with Newkai's position that the article is useful to someone who may have had their website attacked by this particular troll group and would like to find information on them. Seriously now, is this going to be the last attempt to delete this article? Continually calling for deletion of this article is sadly reminiscent of a corrupt government attempting to retry an individual until the jury returns a verdict of guilty, justifications of "irregularities" notwithstanding. In my opinion—and I see I'm not alone in this—Wikipedia's VfD policy is woefully in need of a "double jeopardy" clause. — J’raxis 14:42:11, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

    more like sextuple jeopardy amirite? --Andrew Weevlos G N A A™ 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

73. Keep, they may be obnoxious and waay to entertained by themselves, but they're an internet phenomenon that merits an article. These continued vfd debates are just troll extra value meals, super-sized. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
74. Keep, notable and encyclopedic. Note: This account is new because my old one was unfairly blocked for having 'G' and 'N' followed by two 'A's in the name. I have made well over 100 legitimate edits to wikipedia and am not a sockpuppet. NONCENSORED Popeye 15:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    This is User:GNAA_Popeye He has made over 100 edits. (Nearly all of them are in relation to vfd debates to the GNAA page or related pages).Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

75. Keep the fact that there are over 125 legitimate votes here is enough to tell it is notable. ~~~~ 22:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Ah, but I, for example, was attracted to this vfd for the rather odd name of the article. Moreover, it seems quite possible that while "over 125 legitimate votes here is enough to tell it is notable", perhaps this notability has much more presence on Wikipedia than in the world at large. Thus why 125 Wikipedians have so far legitimately voted. Seeaxid 03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

76. Keep Removing this would be censorship. Wikipedia is about gathering all information in the world, and this is information. Even if I don't like GNAA I still vote keep because of this fact. I also just have to point out how stupid the 100 edit rule is, even if people join only to vote it does not matter. Havok 15:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    But there's the issue, how do we know if it's that someone joins only to vote, or that someone simply creates an additional account to vote several times? Seeaxid 15:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    It's hard, but I stil feel it's censorship when deleting votes, my friend voted and it was discounted because he has to few edits. Not all users of Wikipedia edit on a daily basis. One could check when the user joined Wikipedia for example, or ask them before deleting them. Havok 16:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    In the interest of objectivity, I will point out that Wikipedia is not about gathering all the information in the world. --Weev G N A A™ 01:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

77. No serious reason to delate--Revas 17:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
78. No new arguments, but it should be kept. Dave (talk) 19:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

1. Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena; their notability does not extend beyond that realm. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 08:14 (UTC)

   comment - very wrong - http://media.gnauk.co.uk/aots-gnaa.mpg television anyone? gnaa have also caused many websites (particularly the blog type) to adopt some kind of captcha, 4chan, movabletype, kuro5hin, the list goes on

   The GNAUK? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

   Gay Nigger Association of UK, of course. Timecop 9 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

   Then can we mentioned that groups like the GNAUK were spinoff's/modeled off of the GNAA? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

   Go ahead. Be bold. --Jacj 22:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   Is there any proof of such? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

   There's http://www.gnauk.co.uk/ but I can't think of any other sources so far. --Jacj 03:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

   Agreed. If deletion doesn't work, a redirect would be preferrable. Almafeta 17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

2. Redirect as above. -R. fiend 8 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
3. Redirect as above, too. Strongly support the idea of grouping together trolling phenomena in one article/cat. NickBurns 17:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I need to look at the sources some more, since some of them either do not say what they really are or they do not work. Some of the Slashdot Something Awful links did not work, since I do not have membership to the website. I will try to fix up the sources so I can see how much it is true deal or much of it just promo. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  • Since I can visit that Something Awful subforum (via someone else's account: uh oh, account sharing!) I can confirm that moot does indeed say in the first post of that thread, "It was not the GNAA who killed 4chan (I quite like them actually), or really the moronic users, it was a man named Chris, who goes by the name TheRowan and runs a business that shuts you down if you fail to play along.", a few paragraphs after the picture of BarnacleEd. --Jacj 23:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• The only "precedent" that has been set is that there's no consensus on whether this should be in Wikipedia or not. -- Cyrius|✎ 8 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)
  • I voted last time delete, because in my view, I do not think they are notable. Now, I am trying to see how famous these guys even are. That is why I am doing the source check. Also, for those who can read French, I would look at fr:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America and see how they managed to pull the article off. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
    • The article exists on the French Wikipedia because I translated it (and a few other contributors fixed it). As for why it is still here, it's probably because no one there ever imagined it was not a suitable article. But in fact I think the main reason is that the GNAA has never been disrupting the French Wikipedia (TTBOMK; we have had Autofellatio attacks but I don't know if they were from the GNAA), hence no one VfDed the article as an attempt to retaliate over the GNAA. Sam Hocevar 8 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)
• I have no axe to grind here :: for what it'sworth, the criteria I would apply are 1)Does it exist ? If so 2)Will someone want to look it up ? If so keep the title, and then 3)Is the present text a basis for an informative and NPOV article ? If so keep the lot and let it develop. --Simon Cursitor 8 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
  • I do agree that it should be cleaned up to show what are facts and what are hoaxes. Who knows, maybe after a while, we can see how the article turns out. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 8 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)
  • Though I am administering this vote, I can answer your questions briefly: 1) They exist (I have talked to them on their IRC server/channel; 2) StuartH has stated he has checked the article to find out who they are; and 3) The present text has been looked over with a fine tooth comb by many parties. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy is considered official policy on Wikipedia and no article deserves deviation from this policy without prior consensus to change the policy. This VfD is in extremely bad faith and should be disregarded outright. - Thatdog 8 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. Was not placed here in bad faith. I actively campaigned against this being on VfD, however Tony Sideaway pointed out problems with the past VfD (was supposed to end all this). I am putting it forward again, this time with tight and focussed rules, administered with an iron hand. This will the definitive VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)
    • That's okay Ta bu shi da yu, when gnaa keeps their article this time, you can get someone to bring it up again due to the rule breaking you brought on this vfd. Adamn 8 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
      • Have made an extensive response to accusations of irregularities on the talk page of this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
        • Read and understood. Dissent retracted. - Thatdog 07:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• For those claiming that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, please peruse this page:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and particularly this section here: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, because there is actually nothing that I can find which even remotely suggests that an article like this is innappropriate for Wikipedia (considering that it is not a hoax, clearly not a vanity page, blatantly not an innaproriate user page, definitely not advertising or other spam, and patently not original research [disclaimer:there is a chance that I may be mistaken]). See: Problems that may require deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#What_to_do_with_a_problem_page.2Fimage.2Fcategory. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)

If anything at all, it could be said to be non-notable, but otherwise the information is suitable for Wikipedia, and the article is in very good form. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

I dont see anyone claiming that the article is inappropriate (other than a somewhat casual attitute to fact checking and source citing). The claim is that the subject is not notable.

As for a WP policy, how about this: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable"

I would add, "Not even those with (allegedly) 30 to 40 members" -- Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)

I must have ben slightly mistaken in that only a minority saw it to be innapropriate. And thanks for the link, but I suppose that the vital word in that sentence in generally, and probably the essense of this argument. Seeaxid 9 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

• Read the article with interest.--Bhadani 8 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
• Isn't this VfD a little premature with attempt #5 still not yet closed? siafu 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
  • Will do so. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)
    • Has been done. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
• Comment - this is an abuse of the vfd process, you cannot just change the rules for articles you have so far failed to get rid of. Adamn 8 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
  • The rules haven't been changed. Suspected sockpuppet votes are usually ignored anyway. The only thing different here is that they are being forwarned. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 8 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
    • Agreed. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
• Comment - anonymous votes should only be discounted if bad faith can be proved. I don't like this precedent. Proto t c 8 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
  • A fair amount of leeway may be had by administrators. We have set the rules up front for this VfD (our 6th) so everyone knows what is expected and how it being administered. This is not a precedent, this happens on a case by case basis and this vote is out of the ordinary. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
• Comment: When did "consensus" get redefined from "unanimous" to "70%"? --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
  • Off the top of my head - about 2 years ago. It was a gradual process of course, but it's been 70 -80% for ages now. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Brian0918: unanimity is the worst possible criterion for consensus. I don't think it makes sense to say that there is no consensus just because one person objected to something 100 agree with. --Jacj 00:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Just because it happens online does not mean it is important. Just because it happens on SlashDot does not make it important. Google hit counts are strongly inflated for this stuff. Nobody is talking about this offline.
2. Anybody can make webpages or flood weblogs and chat rooms. It is easy to make a nuisance of yourself online to a lot of people at once. Lacking the decency not to does NOT make you notable. Trolling does not make you notable. Not even if you and your buds think you are really good at it.
3. "[GNAA] was rumored to be mentioned on CNN" Is this really the level of reporting that you want to have in your encyclopedia? Do you think WP could ever be taken seriously with this content included?
4. "Interesting phenomenon"? Are you kidding? Two or three of these kiddies spring up every week. There is nothing interesting, unique, or even mildly surprising about a group of annoying teenagers or college dorks.
5. "Precedent has been set"? So what. Unset it. Get rid of all of this crap. Make a WP:AYBABTU rule or something. If you are not bigger than AYBABTU, you don't get in. Forget it. Or go troll some more message boards and hold your breath for that CNN story.

   This goes for all the rest of you wacky guys out there with your hilarious new meme or your l33t hax0r ski||z. Nobody cares. Seriously.

   I am sorry that I do not have enough edits to count in this vote. I would welcome a discussion over my opinions anyway. - Marvin01 | talk 8 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

   Have moved from discounted votes to comments. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Also see Google Search for "OSX x86 hoax"

Hate to burst someone's bubble, but I noticed 32 unique entries out of those 5000 websites when I clicked on the link. Some of the links did not display the words GNAA at all in their summary. I noticed many blogs/websites tend to report the same thing over and over again, so use caution (no wonder I see some people dismissing the use of the Google test for some VFD's). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

• perhaps this vote, by User:Eliot who has only 11 edits according to Kate's tools, should be discounted:

Delete Eliot 8 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

• and this one by User:Sean Curtin, who has only 2 edits according to Kate's tools:

Delete. It's quite amusing that some votes to keep use the fact that it's previously survived VfD as the primary, or sole, means of verifying its supposed notability. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 04:16 (UTC)

Seeaxid 9 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

User:Eliot is in fact User:Rebrane (see diff, and User:Sean Curtin is User:Gtrmp (see diff). Their votes are both valid, I have checked them both with Kate's tool. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

Hmm .. it seems that I am quite the unperceptive one, thanks for pointing that out anyway. Seeaxid 9 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

• Whay about User:Lysol? He has less than 100 edits.

• Comment User:Mr. Delayer - (contribs) - (edit count) spent all day making null edits just to get his edit count over 100. I reported the suspicious activity on WP:AN before I realized this Vfd was active. <>Who?¿? 11:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Votes that plainly state that they are voting keep, just for the shear fact that it has been through Vfd, should be discounted. The voter should give explicit reasoning for a keep or delete vote. Even a short simple one would suffice, as long as its not related to previous Vfd's. <>Who?¿? 11:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Would suggest to you that it would be bad faith of an administrator to remove those votes if the editor has previously voted keep with a specific reason relating to why the article should be kept. Also, I suspect that if we apply this we would need to apply it to the delete votes also. I can see at least one vote that states that "I don't think trolls deserve that much server space, if at all.", which is clearly invalid because this has nothing to do with notability, and is merely a vote for deletion based on the fact they are trolls. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I did mean for both keep & delete votes. (mentioned that in the second sentence) And not necessarily to remove them, but to suggest they give a reason for voting, other than previous Vfd, and of course "they are just trolls", as they are both invalid votes. I realize this could be even more time consuming than the Vfd. <>Who?¿? 12:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1. • Does it hurt you physically to have an article you have no interest on be listed in an online encyclopedia? You made an account just to delete something you don't agree with? By the way, GNAA website gets thousands hits a month from wikipedia.org or its mirrors. So that does mean that people ARE looking for GNAA on wikipedia/etc and finding it. Why would a valuable resource be deleted? --Timecop 04:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• The valuable resource you mention, only helps GNAA as an advertisement on Wiki, non the other way around. <>Who?¿? 04:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• They probably get thousands of hits BECAUSE Wikipedia drives traffic to their site, with Wikipedia's listing artificially pumping up their importance. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And Slashdot is encyclopedic? If people want to know what Slashdot is, they can visit the website. It's not really necessary to have an article on every fucking website. And while we're at it, why don't we remove all of the User pages? Those aren't very encyclopedic, now are they? (Comment by User:82.165.244.16)

Was not aware that slashdot made a special mention in their about page that notes the many criticisms of their website... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Constant VFD attempts only cause further trolling.
  • (from anon user:65.34.231.115, presumably their representative. And we of course do what they want... - Skysmith 12:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ta bu shi da yu may not be voting... but with that high of a standard for deletion set, and the GNAA's influence on this vote, she/he doesn't need to. Almafeta 21:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• IIRC, when I voted I had 94 edits. I now have 109 110. The top of the page contradicts itself: "However as per VFD policy, all logged in users are able to cast their vote, even if they do not meet our desired 100 edit limit."; but the part that says users with less than 100 edits cannot vote, was not removed. Was that quote added by a vandal? Edit: Kate's tool says I have 97 edits, but that is incorrect. If you look at my contribs page you can count 110. Wtf? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  ... if you had less than 100 edits as of the time you submit your vote then your vote will not be counted --Calton | Talk 08:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"when I voted I had 94 edits." My vote is still there. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 13:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• I know nobody will care, but I must say I like the way the keep and delete votes are organized. I'd like to see this more often. Ghost Freeman ^{T | E} / _C 04:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I care :-) Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• When exactly was the vote where we decided to disallow votes from users with less than 100 edits? I can't say I remember it, or that I'm satisfied with how it was held. If this is to be the final VfD on this article, might it not be a good idea to let the users vote in it? Ninuor 14:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Disqualified votes

Only to be added to by administrators. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

Disqualified Keep

1. keep. notable, informative, etc. --Timecop 8 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

   Why is this vote discounted? Sure he's biased, but he's got over 100 legitimate edits! CAPS LOCK 8 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

   He does not. See Kate's tool and his Special:Contributions/Timecop. At the time of this edit, he had 56 edits. The first started on this VfD. Vote remains discounted. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

   P.S. please note this is nothing personal, and the editor may or may not be a good editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

2. Keep -Results 51 - 60 of about 56,900 for gay nigger association of america. (0.07 seconds) This is on Google. (added by 62.252.160.5)

   Reasoning: it is not possible to know how many votes an anonymous editor has made. Discounting solely for this reason. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)

   Looks to be about 40. Then again, dynamic IPs and all that... --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

   How do we know that this anonymous editor didn't also edit from another IP address? Impossible to tell, so discounting all anonymous votes in this particular VfD. Please note that this is not necessarily the practice in other VfDs, however to maintain acccountability and to be seen to have everything above board I will be administering the vote in this fashion. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)

3. Keep. The dominant reason in the delete box, is that 'we shouldn't promote trolls', or essentially it seems, an indignation over the group, which IMO, is unjustified as we are a neutral wikipedia, and this isn't in the 'wikipedia' namespace. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

   Reasoning: This user has 31 edits. Inelligible for voting. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

   I crossed out my vote and noted this there, but it seems someone undid that for some reason. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

4. Keep. Beyond notable and bordering on omnipotent. thelark

   Reasoning: This user has 4 edits. Inelligible for voting. David | Talk 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

5. Keep. past precedents have proved this is a waste of time. merely not hearing of them is not grounds for non notability Adamn 8 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)

   Reasoning: used has 21 edits according to Kate's tool. Inelligible to vote on this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

6. Strong Keep. 6th VfD! 6th! You'd think the 2nd time around, people would get a clue! I'm feeling like I need to introduce Wikipedia: Get a clue, damn it!. GNAA is an entity within Slashdot, it exists seperate from CowboyNeal's pants, let it have it's own article. Is it taking up space? here, i'll donate 30GB, if it does... You'd almost think there's a cabal against this article...

   Can I help write it? Ghost Freeman | Talk 8 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

   Reasoning: vote was unsigned. All editors must sign votes. If the editor wishes to resubmit this, they must sign it. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)

7. Keep. Wow. Again. Ok, I say keep for two main reasons. 1) this was VfD'ed all of a few weeks ago. This is also its 6th VfD, and its managed to survive all of them. Shouldn't that be a hint that the article should stay? 2) It's proven that this is not *just* a bunch of /. trolls, this is a seperate entity that has gained fame for other things (the leaked Tiger screenshots for example). Thus it is encyclopedic. NeoThermic 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

   Reasoning: NeoThermic has 41 edits according to Kate's tool. Rules are clear: he/she is inelligible to vote in this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

   I actually expected this, seeing as I don't have many edits. But I've been here for a long time, and its not like I've made 49 quick edits just to vote here. My first edit in this account (I used to edit anon for a while) was 22 November 2004. So please don't treat my vote as if it doesn't matter. Evidently I have a voice, and I wish to express it as I see fit. Finally, if you can provide me with a link to indicate that one shouldn't partake in a VfD until x amount of posts, then I'll agree that my vote can waste away here. But as Proto stated in his comment, votes shoudn't really be discounted unless you can *prove* Bad Faith. NeoThermic 9 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

   Because of the nature of this vote, it is not what I would class as an ordinary VfD. Our voting criteria for an article that has been submitted six times is now a lot stricter. This has been necessary, if unfortunately so, because IMHO there has been considerable bad faith edits on both sides (keep and delete). Keep because they refuse to accept the vote after 5 times, and delete because of sock puppets and harassment. I am running this vote with some very clear, set rules. Regrettably, any user who is very new might be deemed to be a ring-in of either camp or perhaps a sock-puppet of an existing member. Thus, I must discount votes of all people who have had less than 100 edits. I'm sorry that this includes you, but I can't show you any favour on this. If you would like, it is perfectly valid for you to add a comment to the #Comments section. I would also suggest you refer to Theresa Knott's comment above. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

   I just feel that concentrating on just edits is a bit, lacking any better words at 4:50am, shallow. Shy wikipedians (those who have few edits, but have been here for a while) have opinions, and they shouldn't be squashed due to their shyness to edit articles. I'm (very) sure that discounting my vote isn't personal, since you've outlined a simple policy, but it has to be said, this is its sixth VfD, its survived (possibly with conterversy) them all so far. I just felt that, despite my lack of editcount, that my time registerd here would hold more weight, allowing me to have a say in ending this (increasing) set of VfD's :) NeoThermic 9 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

   I believe the admins are following this idea: Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#When_questions_arise. The number of edits listed here is 100. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

   Actually, as Ta bu shi da yu has kindly pointed out to me somwhere else, its accountable votes that is beeing sought after here. Unfortunatly the current single-value limit of just edits doesn't take into account the length of time a user has been here. I'm happy for my vote to be here since Ta bu shi da yu has explained it sufficently well enough. I'm sure that if there is such a VfD like this again, it will cater for those who are frequently infrequent ;) NeoThermic 9 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)

8. Keep The person administering this vfd does not posess sufficient impartiality to do it in a correct fashion as evidenced by the numerous breaches of protocol which display his desire to see the page deleted. A vote to delete is a vote to kill freedom user:l0de

   User has two edits as lode and one edit as 67.86.216.245 (this one) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

9. Keep, notable. --Lysol July 8, 2005 17:01 (UTC)

   Not enough edits, plus user is permenantly blocked as a role account. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

   Role account? Can you prove that? As far as I am aware, Lysol is not a sock puppet/role account, and while he may be an infrequent contributor he is not breaking the rules. Kryptops 11:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

10. Strong Keep. as demonstrated by Google Search for "OSX x86 hoax".--TexasDex July 9, 2005 03:35 (UTC)

    Accidentally voted twice, I have struck this vote from the page. --TexasDex July 9, 2005 14:14 (UTC)

    Reasoning: accidental duplicate vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

11. Extremely Strong Keep Death to censorship! Notable! Huge members of Apple and Slashdot communities! Mr. Delayer 10:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Reasoning: clear attempt at gaming his edit count by creating useless edits. If disputed, please refer to WP:POINT. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

12. Keep Censorship is ignorance. If there is significant evidence of such an organisation, then it should remain.

    Reasoning: unsigned vote, inelligible. If participant wishes to sign and they satisfy the other criteria, then they may revote. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

13. Keep, greatest organization ever made where a group of friends wich are not jews, are able to have a nice time. --ethniccleansing (User's 4th edit, [2], and I suggest a block for the choice of usernamme. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC))

    Reasoning - not enough edits Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

14. Keep, Not notable? Try making that argument after all the other retarded articles are deleted Dementedd 23:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Reasoning:User has 77 edits. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    I have over 100 edits now, please move this back. Dementedd 02:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    ... if you had less than 100 edits as of the time you submit your vote then your vote will not be counted --Calton | Talk 08:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Don't bother. This user vandalised this page and has been submitting useless edits to Wikipedia to get his edit count up. Clearly is editing in bad faith, and I have blocked them for the next 3 days. Note that I rolled back his talk page blanking and made a note there after the block was peformed. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

15. Keep. I would see removing this article as needless censorship. Ninuor 22:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    reasoning - less than 50 edits. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

16. Keep. So far, I've seen no strong arguments to delete this page. Rather obviously not a vanity article, and there's a pretty clear consensus at this point that the GNAA is notable enough for Wikipedia. Kryptops 22:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Reasoning - less than 100 edits. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

17. Keep The person administering this vfd does not posess sufficient impartiality to do it in a correct fashion as evidenced by the numerous breaches of protocol which display his desire to see the page deleted. A vote to delete is a vote to kill freedom user:l0de

    Not enough edits. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

18. Strong Keep. 6th VfD! 6th! You'd think the 2nd time around, people would get a clue! I'm feeling like I need to introduce Wikipedia: Get a clue, damn it!. GNAA is an entity within Slashdot, it exists seperate from CowboyNeal's pants, let it have it's own article. Is it taking up space? here, i'll donate 30GB, if it does... You'd almost think there's a cabal against this article...

    Unsigned Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

19. Keep. Wow. Again. Ok, I say keep for two main reasons. 1) this was VfD'ed all of a few weeks ago. This is also its 6th VfD, and its managed to survive all of them. Shouldn't that be a hint that the article should stay? 2) It's proven that this is not *just* a bunch of /. trolls, this is a seperate entity that has gained fame for other things (the leaked Tiger screenshots for example). Thus it is encyclopedic. NeoThermic 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

    Too few edits Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

20. keep. notable, informative, etc. --Timecop 8 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

    not enough edits Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

21. Keep -Results 51 - 60 of about 56,900 for gay nigger association of america. (0.07 seconds) This is on Google. (added by 62.252.160.5)
22. Keep. The dominant reason in the delete box, is that 'we shouldn't promote trolls', or essentially it seems, an indignation over the group, which IMO, is unjustified as we are a neutral wikipedia, and this isn't in the 'wikipedia' namespace. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

    not enough edits Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

23. Keep. Beyond notable and bordering on omnipotent. thelark

    not enough edits Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

24. Keep. INSANE! SIX ! 6! One VfD before the last VfD was closed! We have special arbitrary restructuring of VfD rules without consultation or consensus that are so far off from "official policy". This is a joke. - User:BurningTheGround

    Reason: first ever edit. Definitely not elligible. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

25. Keep. Useful article. Me and friends found it informational. Gold Stur 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Reason: has 50 edits according to Kate's tool. Inelligible to vote in this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

26. Keep. 5 VfD's already? As distasteful as they are, they are notable enough to merit an entry. ChronoSphere 14:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Only 88 edits Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

27. Keep It's unfortunate you can't count this vote (and I do understand; I'm not complaining), but, true story: this morning I was idly curous about GNAA, and was pleased to discover the Wikipedia article, so that I did't have to favor GNAA's site with an undeserved hit. Trolls they certainly are, and sad it is that they've become "notable", but like it or not, they are, and the article is wholly appropriate. -- ummit

    First edit. Gamaliel 17:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

28. Keep notable and notorious. Kfort 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry not enough edits. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

29. Keep. And I do not have less than 50 edits, thank you very much. Ninuor 01:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    According to Kate's tool, Ninuor has 44 edits. Unless there is a reason why this is not correct, vote is discounted. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Addedenum:' Kate's tool is wrong: Ninuor has 51 edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    I do indeed. And since when did having less than 100 edits disqualify a user from voting? It's a scandal that you two keep removing keep votes for not meeting a requirement that you yourselves have defined. Ninuor 14:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    The requirement is a common one. Admins routinlely ignore users with only a few edits, they just don't normally spell it out in advance. Note that delete votes are also being removed. I understand that it is frustrating for you. You are clearly not a sockpuppet. But remember that the purpose of the vote is to gauge consensus. The voting among editors with >100 edits is likey to be similar to that among all editors, and the 100 edit minimum does rule out an awful lot of sockpuppets. Without this rule detractors will use it as an excuse to discount this vfd.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

30. Keep it real, yo GNAA is my homies. JacksonBrown 10:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Not enough edits. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Whoa! Slow down cowgirl!

    Reason: 49 edits, most of them to his/her user page and only then so that they can be offensive using (I must say) a fairly creative means of overriding the default skin... Definitely not to be counted. Oh, incidently, they are blocked for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

31. Keep. This thing has had 10 6 VfDs and not been deleted? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 05:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Pile0nades had 94 edits when he voted. Vote disqualified. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Disqualified Delete

1. Strong Delete - No No No. So many reasons, must enumerate...

   user only has 15 edits. As by VFD, this vote does not count. 8 July 2005 11:57 (JST)

2. Delete Pretty gay use of server space--Pyrobob 8 July 2005 14:30 (EST)

   Homophobia is no reason for deletion, I ask for this vote to be ignored. unsigned comment by 83.131.28.161, personal attack removed

   When I checked, Pyrobob has 74 edits. Inelligible for voting. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

3. Delete I'm commenting even though my entry should be discounted (not enough edits). GNAA is self-promotion, nothing more. To treat them as notable is to help them in their quest to be notable. Alternate 8 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

   Reasoning: Alternate has 4 edits according to Kate's tool. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

4. STRONG DELETE. Internets 01:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   6, i repeat, 6 edits. moving right along. Project2501a 02:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   SO WHAT??? I EDIT IN GOOD FAITH, BESIDES, VFD POLICY DOESNT REGULATE HOW MANY EDITS USER MUST HAVE BEFORE VOTING!!!!! DELETE GNAA!!! --Internets 02:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   AND SINCE I BELIEVE I AM ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IM PUTTING MY VOTE BACK. --Internets 02:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

   Which will still be discounted anyway, so this is a pointless exercise. Please note that I have removed inflammatory language. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

5. Delete. Vanity article, trivial at best. My comment will probably be discounted, as I only have about 50 edits, but I think this is a poor measure of a "very new user." Dayv 8 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

   I agree it's not ideal, but we have to some cut off, and so far we've been able to keep a lot of sockpuppet votes out. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

6. Delete. They flodded my blog twice! These trolls shouldn't be allowed to exist! USER:Protecttheinternet 21:33, 10 July 2005 (CDT)

   Not even trying! Is this lazy or what? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

7. Delete. Non notable, vanity page. 80.203.115.12 17:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry but there is no way of telling how many edits a non logged in user makes. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

   I withdraw my vote since it's obvious to all that it was done in very bad-faith. Congratulations to Ta bu shi da yu for his skillful politics and manipulation and for preserving the vanity page of his close friends and fellow trolls. 80.203.115.12 17:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

   No one thinks it was made in bad faith. I know it's harsh, but please believe me it's not personal. I hope that you understand that if we allow your vote in we'll be forced to allow god knowns how many votes from trolls editing from proxy servers. Also anyone who wanted to could vote twice, once logged in and once as their IP. Now most regular Wikipedians would never do such a thing of course but detractors would claim such a thing and the matter would not be settled once and for all. This way we can put an end to the constant vfds. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

   Your vote was disqualified because you are voting as an anonymous editor. I have not done this out of spite or for personal reasons. How can I? You are an anonymous editor and I have never met you before! However, I have no idea whether anonymous editors have voted before, therefore their vote does not count in this VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

   I think you are being a bit harsh here. As unpopular as Ta bu's rules might prove to be, you must agree that they disqualified far more keep votes than delete votes. And no, the keep votes are no more obvious trolls than the delete ones. Sam Hocevar 17:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

8. Delete. In the words of George Walker Bush: We cannot let the trolls win. We cannot allow them to intimidate us, harass us or scare us. We will not allow them to change our American way of life. Midster 18:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

   83 edits Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

9. "Delete" An insignificant trolling org. has no place here. Vanity. Put it under Slashdot trolling phenomena.

   Vote by 67.80.190.198

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.