Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Return Gay Nigger Association of America – Deletion endorsed – 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gay Nigger Association of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)
GNAA AfD Nominations

1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th

11th | 12th | 13th | 14th | 15th | 16th | 17th | 18th

10 GNAA AfD nominations pool | MfD of pool | 2nd MfD of pool

Deletion review | 2nd | Jimbo on GNAA deletion

The article was deleted too soon before a real discussion could commence (and this was the 18th deletion debate for a contentious page). The article was AFD'd on the 26th and deleted early on the 28th. At the very least the article should be undeleted and a new AFD should be started or the old one restarted. TrollHistorian 06:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, possibly Speedy close. Valid AfD, there were a LOT of verifiability concerns brought up and none of the keepers had much to say besides that there were lots of previous AfDs. After literally years of sitting around unverified, it's not coming back. Let it rest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were plenty of primary sources. I don't think you'd see a lot of secondary sources with a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28&action=edit&section=10group like this. You'll see people responding to what they did. Regardless their trolls were pretty well documented and those affected often wrote about it. They meet any metric of notability from Alexa rankings to Google rankings. What the article needs is secondary sources. To delete and protect is pretty insulting because it doesn't even allow the article to improve and it doesn't allow us to actually add anything. Seeing as it was deleted over the period of 2 days. --TrollHistorian 06:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rank was in the 250,000 range, and Google has 127 unique hits, neither of which are even close to high enough for an article. More importantantly, there wasn't a single Reliable source. There is no way such a fundamentally unverifiable article could be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was valid. Simply, articles need reliable sources. This one had zero reliable sources, and the comments in the AfD reflected that. All of the AfDs since July 2005 were speedily closed based on it have been nominated before. That is, there hasn't been a real AfD on this that could possibly be considered precedent since July 2005, in which the AfD was closed by someone who was or was previously a member of the "group", and many of the keep reasonings were still "there have been so many other AfDs on this subject". Most of the past AfDs were like this; this one was pretty sound and the discussion and decisions have to be based on Wikipedia policy and article standards. Quite a peculiar case history though. —Centrx→talk • 07:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid AfD per Centrx. 1ne 07:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Discussion was clearly heading for a consensus of delete. Keeping it open another three days would have made it more so, but achieved nothing else – Gurch 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - In short, Centrx and Starblind have it summed up perfectly. There is no way whatsoever we can source this article, and that is a core policy, we can't go breaking that now can we?. Most previous AfD's have been full of sockpuppetry and seriously, this was like the ESP MfD, we could let it go on longer but all it would really give us is more trolling and not much more meaningful discussion. -- Tawker 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This was an extremely skillful application of ignoring the waiting period rule on AfDs. Needless to say, this should only be done in the rarest of rarest of cases. theProject 07:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't have been speedy closed, and I rather suspect the main reason that it was is that Tawker wanted to be the one that finally got to Push The Button. (I can hardly blame him; I'd been refraining from a "Delete per all the misguided keeps above" for similar reasons.) That said, there's really no point in reopening this unless someone comes forward with a source that's reliable (i.e., not a blog), nontrivial (i.e., more than a sentence-long mention in the middle of an article about something else entirely), and independent (i.e., not created by a member). Endorse deletion. —Cryptic 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion per Centrx, the reasoning behind the AfD close was valid. Even looking beyond that, the "group" does not come close to meeting any policy or guideline (per Starblind), especially verifiability with reliable sources. Further, some of the keep arguments were forged, and the vast majority of them offer no actual reasons to keep the article (one edit summary reads "keep, because."). --Coredesat 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & relist - AfD closed after only 2 days, hence out of process. If consensus is to delete it after that fine, but an article that survived 17 previous AfD's deserves to run its full course. VegaDark 07:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I believe the matter's been brought up that a large majority of those AfD survivals were speedy keeps and did not allow for any discussion. theProject 16:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is what makes this speedy close that much more wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion is clearly warranted per WP:V and WP:RS and re-opening the debate is inappropriate per WP:SNOW. Eluchil404 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion per TheProject. The fact that there were 18 previous AfDs showcases how WP:IAR is required. Danny Lilithborne 08:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Gurch. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: This was the only AFD I've seen that was not a "OMG THIS GROUP IS BAD WHY DOES WIKIPEDIA HAVE AN ARTICLE FOR IT?" reason for deletion, as several others were. This was done in process, although it was closed early, but it was a definite delete.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow to complete its full course. I guess i'm just crazy... but you know we have policy for a reason. AFD has a timeframe for a reason... its not a to be closed on a whim process. Hell I hate the GNAA as much as the next guy considering they made death threats on my home phone! But even I can see this was done entirely out of process. I've no doubt if it had run its course the final result would have been a keep (just like the previous umpteen times). This early closure sets a bad precedent... can an admin just close an AFD when the side he likes is winning? Are people allowed to just keep submitting stuff on AFD until they get a result they like? I for one dont think this result is going to improve our steadily tarnishing image.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I've got the "process is important" userbox on my page, but even I'm willing to concede IAR here. The article fails inclusion standards at a core policy level. Unless that changes, it doesn't matter how many !votes for Keep arrived. That it still fails inclusion under those standards after 17 other AfDs does not indicate that we should give this three more days; it indicates that previous AfDs were not all processed properly (indeed, several seem to me to have been intended simply to ratchet up the counter to increase inertia in its favor). The best way to improve our "steadily tarnishing image" is to hold articles to the rules of inclusion, not to give this thing another 3 days to attract meatpuppetry. Serpent's Choice 09:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid (and inevitable) deletion debate. The only point in relisting is either drawing out the ineviatble or grasping at straws. --Calton | Talk 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion and salting. WP:SNOW and WP:IAR were well applied, as not a single 'keep' was valid in either policy or common sense. Well done to Tawker. The fact that the article went through 17 prior AFDs is not evidence that Wikipedia should have kept the "article"; it's an example of how easily SiGs and forum trolls get away with manipulating Wikipedia process and gullible admins to retain their garbage. Proto::type 10:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The debate was admittedly open for a short time, though there was more discussion than most seven-day debates, and the arguments were compelling. No new information had been presented by either side; the administrator closing the debate had seen all the original arguments. Unless new information can be presented which would significantly affect the decision, the debate should remain closed. —Psychonaut 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The only way to make this nonsense end is to stop closing these early. The early closes have no basis and only end up muddying the water. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse dleetion, long overdue. Historical problems with trolling and puppet theatre render AfD substantially unusable for this subject. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think after several years of debates, at least one reliable source would have popped up. Most of these debates degenerated into trolling and sockpuppets. --Wafulz 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Closing the AfD before the arguments were even heard is dishonest at best. Please leave some time to answer. For instance, NeoFreak's points have not been addressed. Sam Hocevar 14:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Nobody would provide WP:RS, deleted per no verifiablity. Only contention about this deletion is that people didn't want it to end that way. Open a short time yes, but clearly many people participated. If anyone asks me for an example of WP:IAR being used for it's designed purpose, then I will use this closing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I agree with Sam Hocevar's statement. This is typical Wikipedia administrator privilege abuse that I have become aware of in the last few months. As well, having been an IRC user for many years I've fallen victim to many of the GNAA's pranks and anybody who has not lived under a rock for the last few years would have heard of some of their trolls, perhaps even fallen victim to their trolls themselves. I can see why this might breed resentment in people, however, that does not mean that the article should be deleted. ContivityGoddess 14:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: No one supported the deletion, or endorses the closure, with the argument Endorse deletion because I resent the GNAA. Please pay attention - the endorsements and the deletion arguments are for no sources. If you plan to make an argument for overturning and relisting, try to address the actual deletion, not a perceived resentment which has no bearing. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion Long overdue indeed per JzG's point above; those voting keep relied almost exclusively on the fact that it had survived a large number of earlier AfDs, ignoring both the outcome of the early ones and the fact that subsequent ones were usually speedily kept on a misapplication of the snowball principal. No valid arguments were made for keeping this, which clearly fails a long list of notability and verifiability guidelines. Protect from recreation. Eusebeus 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as somebody who didn't participate in this deletion, but was concerned that it would get out of hand, I see this speedy closure as a sign of abuse on the closing admin. It should not be endorsed. If you can't wait five days to get something done, then you that is your problem, and should not be used as a reason to violate standing procedure where there is a clear ongoing discussion. Consensus is not reached by the first person to act. Now personally, I don't think a convention AfD is the way to go with this issue anyway. 18 nominations? It shows to me there's a problem of deep severity, and this needs to be handled elsewhere. Not with some dirty, deeply suspicious deletion. Frankly, I think the closing Admin should be reported and investigated. FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you believe that three more days would have added any more substantial information to the discussion? Keep in mind that the article was around for years without a single independent source, which was largely the result of hasty or misguided closures in favour of keeping the article. --Wafulz 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse deletion. In the AfD discussion I originally said "keep per WP:SNOW", but I added this before reading the AfD, figuring that it was yet another non-serious request designed to game the system. I would have taken it back had the AfD not closed so quickly. The points raised in the AfD, in my opinion, were all valid, specifically the fact that the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. Although seventeen failed AfD's is hard to argue with, the article has had plenty of time to find valid sources. Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I was surprised and a little concerned by the quick close, but Tawker is right that longer discussion would have added little while steering the discussion into a trollish quagmire. The major points had been made on both sides, and the keep voters did not make much of a case despite much prompting. bikeable (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Two days, in this case, was sufficient to generate a high enough volume of commentary for a clear consensus to form, and one did. Early closing just spared us another few days of hooting and hollering. --RobthTalk 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfDs are not just about volume. They're also about giving the opposition enough time to mount a defence. I've seen several cases where the article about something that was obviously notable was deleted far too early (granted, the articles stank and didn't have clues about the thing's notability, but the topics were notable) I agree, it may be a bit silly to demand that, but we must use equally fair things. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The typical "defense" of the GNAA page was massive puppetry. The most productive defense of an article is to fix it, and they have had two and a half years to find reliable sources on the subject. There are none. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, but I'm not questioning the quality of the defence either. What I'm saying is "We left the deletion debate open for the required time, we let people have their say for the allotted time, then we closed it exactly as required in the policy - just like every other AfD debate. So why are we complaining?" Yes, the prolonged debate just generates anon-flood crap. No, it won't change the end result. Yes, everyone's happy with the result we have now. But someone from outside of Wikipedia saying we didn't follow our own rules, which means we need to defend our policies every time someone brings this up. Okay, maybe I'm just a little bit too paranoid about our reputation. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Yes, I'm obviously crazy to suggest the article should return, and I'm not going to win friends with this proposition either, but seriously, what can possibly be so hard about conducting the AfD in a proper fashion? The early closure kind of smelled like "darn, we panicked." So here's what I propose: Overturn, relist, let it run the whole period of time this time, refactor the debate for readability (and move inevitable long offshoot discussions to talk page), and after that time, close it. I don't care if there's problems counting the heads properly at the end. Form an emergency committee of admins, or whatever. Then, a procedural Deletion Review to make sure that got done right. Note, however, that I'm not suggesting this will change the outcome, or that I'm contesting the results of this particular AfD; all I'm asking is that this AfD is conducted with all of the proper ceremony required. I hope everyone agrees this is an exceptional situation, and exceptional situations need extra care. Closing the debate early just makes people cry for blood. So, one more time, with all of the policies and guidelines conveniently at hand. That way, we won't let anyone to cry for blood afterwards. In short, "If you're AfDing something that ought to be dead, and need 18 tries, and the last one was clearly closed too early, something is fishy." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and I just add that, despite of the above, I'm not complaining if this deletion is endorsed, as long as this DRV is carried out properly. At least that will let me counter "omg Wikipedia deletion process sucked when they finally deleted GNAA" with "...well, sucked or not, that result was found valid in another process." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't going to join in this discussion, but this made me chuckle: "what can possibly be so hard about conducting the AfD in a proper fashion?" For one answer to that, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (6th nomination) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (6th nomination). Uncle G 20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, seems I can't convey emotions these days. I wasn't saying this as an innocent, clueless query; it was intended as a rhetorical question, similar to one asked by a drill sergeant after the recruit fails to do something correctly for the 18th time. Though, I tend to yell a little bit less. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another comment: Please don't give the GNAA the bragging rights for inspiring the creation of "Wikipedia:Deletion review review". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There were no reliable sources, and after two years of existence, with 17 AfDs, three more days would not have changed that. There is nothing anyone could have contributed that was not already mentioned, so the only result of extending it would be a mob of WP:IKNOWIT and WP:IHATEIT votes, which are entirely useless. -Amarkov blahedits 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Unreliable sources, not notable, promo. It's time to finally lay this to rest. --Improv 16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Per above. I had no idea this was deleted... bout damn time... Wickethewok 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorese deletion. Look, we're all tired of this article, OK? 18 freaken nominations. What a waste of resources. I don't care if the closing was in order or not, keep deleted and salted per WP:IAR and the general principle of "Make it go away, Daddy!" Herostratus 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and finally end this sad chapter of Wikipedians being easilly duped into including unverifiable gunk that no one but Wikipedia would write about. --W.marsh 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as I said on the AfD no reliable secondary sources no Wikipedia article. User:Whispering 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The GNAA were not given enough time to load up their sock puppets in order to skew the results. This is another outrageous abuse by the Wikipedo admin's.MenciaMadness 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— MenciaMadness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

  • Endorse deletion although I would have preferred the AfD had gotten its full five-day run. No reliable sources were added since the previous round, and none were offered in the discussion, which garnered a lot of comments and appeared to reach a consensus among editors whose reasoning indicated any understanding of WP's policies. Barno 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no sources = not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & relist - I am uncomfortable with the idea of closing the 18th AFD discussion early as a delete. Guettarda 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and continue listing for 3 more days This article should have been deleted a long time ago. I'm glad that its been nominated again, but I don't like WP:IAR and I don't think WP:SNOW quite applies here, so I'm going to have to recommend a continuance of the discussion. Bwithh 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Article was unsourced and unverifiable, and should've been deleted long ago. This AfD page got to be huge after just two days; keeping it open longer would've done nothing more than attract more puppetry. WarpstarRider 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist from scratch, both the 18th nomination and this review are now tainted. Is there a reason we don't have the {{Drv}} template on the Gay Nigger Association of America article to notify people that this backdoor discussion is taking place? Why was the talk page edit protected? Why was the discussion closed early? Silensor 22:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment use of the {{Drv}} template is unusual, so non-use of it is no taint. (Although personally I wish it was used more often.) There is a criteria for speedy deletion to delete the talk page of an article already deleted, so that isn't a problem either so far as I know. I don't see any process issues with the deletion review. GRBerry 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment no, what is unusual is having a talk page deleted and subsequently protected, and not having a a {{Drv}} template to redirect our contributors to in the event they would like to participate in an ongoing debate. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any other examples of such a tainted deletion process. Silensor 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It's not necessary to add {{Drv}} in this case, since the page was protected. There's a link to DRV on the {{deletedpage}} tag. --Coredesat 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Ack Improv. Bastiq▼e demandez 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Most of the sourcing of the article was provided by me and others during the course the article was going through FAC in 2005. Most of the sources, that I found, were IRC logs, forum postings, stuff from the GNAA website or from random pages. That is the best I could come up with. However, as with most of the sources I mentioned, they can go away, be edited or have no claims of validity. I can edit forum posts without people knowing and a whole lot of other things I can do. I had no regrets working on the article, but I believe that even at the best state of the article, many still believe it fails verification. Frankly, I agree. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article lacked reliable sources. An exhaustive search on LexisNexis from all available dates and categories returns no matches, trivial or otherwise, and the primary sources within the article failed our standards for verifiability. Given the contentious nature of the subject and its record number of previous deletion discussions, this isn't something I would've suggested closing early, but the conclusion still remains valid. Relisting for another 3 or 5 days will not change this, so I endorse deletion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It's important to note that this is only about the second or third time that an AFD was for real (in fact, many of the prior AFDs were trolling by GNAA members. In a legitimate attempt to delete the article, where sourcing and verifiability issues were still not yet met, I endorse this deletion. Ral315 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for the same reliable source issues given above and in the afd. shotwell 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The reliable source issue cannot be ignored. Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the outcome of this AFD. Here in the nerd world, some of us may have heard of GNAA (or the Slashdot readers amongst us, anyway), but out in the real world, it's a nothing, and there's nothing verifiable that can be said about it. If I'm putting myself on a GNAA hitlist for this opinion ... then so be it. --Cyde Weys 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. All the reasons for a delete and salt seem to be simply that the article is poorly written. If it is poorly written then it simply need to be written again. Deleting it and protecting the page to prevent recreation is not encouraging the wikipedia community, but rather acting like children who want to kick someone out of their special club. This is wikipedia, not the playground. If the article is bad, then mark it for improvement and see if writers come out to provide more sources. If they do not, then market AfD and let the full process run its course. An AfD in 2 days is simply absurd.Qapf 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article is crap after over two years then there's no helping it. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you understand the deletion argument at all... Wikipedia articles are written on reliable sources, not just on forum posts and chat logs, and there's nothing more than that here. A truly reliable, good article is impossible. Even the people who've cited the current sources have said as much. --W.marsh 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Good and brave call. Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. Reliable sources... reliable sources... The GNAA had an article in The Scotsman [1] last year with coverage that I would consider more than just "trivial", so should I infer then that all of those who have endorsed above consider this to be a non-reliable source? My main concern here is that these verifiability standards are not being applied even handedly. RFerreira 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However when you actually look into it, the main source of the Scotsman article is actually... the unreliable Wikipedia article. So in that context it's not very reliable at all... they sometimes write articles on Wikipedia drama using the Wikipedia article as the source. --W.marsh 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing an article in the Scotsman that uses Wikipedia as its sole source on the GNAA! Not reliable, not independent, totally circular. That's the danger of having unreferenced material in Wikipedia, it gets reproduced everywhere as if it were factual. - Nunh-huh 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not how I read the article. If you can cite something which actually proves that Wikipedia was used as the sole source of their article, I will gladly endorse this deletion straight away. The Scotsman does link to some Wikipedia pages, but I was not under the impression that it was used as their primary source. RFerreira 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, then, in your impression, is the article's source? - Nunh-huh 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I'm not going to go about assuming what they were. If irrefutable evidence can be presented that Wikipedia was the sole source of their article, you have my endorsement. RFerreira 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the link to Wikipedia, the Scotsman article is unsourced. - Nunh-huh 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you've contacted and confirmed this information with the writer of this article and their editing staff, you really have no place to say that. RFerreira 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable authors cite sources they use. Reliable authors don't cite sources they haven't used. You are seeking to salvage the Scotsman article as a source by claiming that its author cited a source he didn't use, while concealing sources he did use. That in and of itself would make him an unreliable author. - Nunh-huh 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop with the baseless accusations now. Like it or not, most newspapers and magazines do not disclose their references in print. Does that mean we should start excluding them as sources from Wikipedia? Take for example The New Yorker [2] a magazine which features several prize winning authors; none of their articles include sources, but that sure as hell doesn't mean they're an unreliable source or are somehow practicing bad journalism. Wikipedia even credits them for being well known for their "rigorous fact checking and copyediting", yet I don't see a source cited for that.  ;-) RFerreira 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any accusations. I stated a fact: The article you point to provides no source other than Wikipedia for its information about GNAA. It also provides very little information about the GNAA, other than that they are insecure crapflooding white kids who have worries about their own orientation. - Nunh-huh 03:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a source in the article. It was a link to provide further information to the reader. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If we're going to take our verifiability policy seriously, we need to be prepared to make these sorts of decisions. Chick Bowen 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Bad Faith Nomination. 70.59.138.245 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad faith nomination? Of all the process reasons one could name, I can't really see how this AfD was made in bad faith. It clearly stated it was attempting to achieve a consensus after only about ten or so speedy keeps. theProject 03:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to mention that calling for a relist because the nomination was "bad faith" doesn't make much sense at all. WarpstarRider 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Yikes. I was waiting to close this one, I think it was closed way too early, but it was a proper deletion. Yanksox 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist' - to have a full 5 day discussion. // I c e d K o l a (Contribs) 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting thread on the lists for your reading enjoyment -- Tawker 04:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Slightly out of process but certainly what should have happened. Almost everything on the article was WP:OR using unreliable sources. About time this got removed. If they every actually meet WP:WEB then we should consider a recreation. Not before that. JoshuaZ 04:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, shucks, I missed it; but endorse deletion per WP:PR. I suggest a copy in WP space, however. This will mean:
    • We can say, when a new article appears, and it will, "it wasn't sourced in November, and it isn't now."
    • Future Wikipedians will know what this nonsense was about. Septentrionalis 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per Alkivar, Badlydrawnjeff (and others); the policy of having a set period for AFDs is there for a reason. And there is atleast one reasonably-claimed reliable source (the Scotsman article), so speedy-closing based on WP:RS seems a bad idea. If there are in fact no reliable sources, it'll still be that way after 5 days and it can be closed then. Mairi 07:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V problems in any article means the default option changes from keep to delete automatically. Best keep argument was "This means we won't have a 19th nomination". Counting the support for the nomination for my personal evaluation, I reached 32 "me toos" on that one argument alone. I think that if I counted all the arguments (most of them are based on WP:RS, so qualify as "strong"), I could be looking at double figures for delete, and a big fat 0 for keep. Maybe 2-3 points if one of the keep arguments qualifies as "weak" rather than "non-issue". Endorse wholeheartedly. Without a doubt, if you asked people to name a troll organisation, GNAA tops the list by a country mile. Unfortunately, their exploits just aren't written about in the places we need them to be. Or should that be "fortunately"? Never mind. Chris cheese whine 11:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, and good riddance. - Mike Rosoft 13:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I agree with deletion, but this shouldn't have been closed early. That said the only keep in all of these AfDs were the early closed 5th and the only deletes in the later overturned 3rd and the recently early closed 18th --T-rex 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist as per Alkivar's arguments. There are a lot of articles with unsourced statements but we don't delete the entire article because parts of it need citations. Perhaps it would be better to remove unsourced statements rather than throwing away the entire article. The fact that this was closed early is an affront to the principles wikipedia stands for, namely, drawn out discourse in the interest of making everybody at least a little happy, as opposed to keep re-nominating GNAA until a consensus for delete is reached. Keep the thing open more than two days, you cowards. -Ich (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point being made was that if you took out all the unsourced material, you get more or less a blank page. We have to remove unourced material. WP:V is not negotiable and not subject to consensus. Chris cheese whine 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the article needed reliable sources. Just as with this one, other articles have the opportunity to cite references for unsourced statements; in more than two years no reliable sources have been provided. —Centrx→talk • 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist : procedural violation. `'mikkanarxi 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. One silly trolling group and source issues. This is a fairly acceptional case of an article of dragged out existence and I'd rather not focus on very strick procedure adherence. What importance this topic has is just feedback loop from it being here and mirrored anyway.Voice-of-All 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikkalai has reverted the close of the AfD even as this discussion is ongoing. I reverted his open and he has reverted me. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but believe his actions are the inappropriate actions of an admin involved in a dispute. I will bring this up at WP:ANI.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe (talk • contribs) .
    I am absolutely shocked with an endorsement of admin's abuse. `'mikkanarxi 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per identical logic that saw the Encyclopedia Dramatica article deleted. No WP:RS, not notable, not verifiable. This article has no doubt survived due to numerous editors operating out of vanity which is also grounds for deletion. (→Netscott) 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of this offensive article. About time it gets deleted, the ED case should have created a precedent... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for the simple reason that two days are not enough to discuss such an AFD. Note that I voted am in favour of deleting the article, but just because I agree with the result doesn't mean that I agree with throwing our process out of the window for no apparent reason. --Conti|✉ 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse while this probably should not have been closed early the bottom line is that this article is not verifiable from reliable sources and I'd wager good money it was not going to suddenly get sourced in the next couple of days. In 18 deletion discussions, nobody has ever once produced a reliable source. Talk of Google hits and Alexa rankings is absolutely meaningless. The day reliable sources are found, this article could be recreated, but right now it has no justification for being here. 3 more days wouldn't change that.--Isotope23 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the ridiculous number of past AFDs for this article, would it be possible to restore the list of past AFD nominations to Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America, then re-protect? It'll save a lot of people headaches if we ever need to revisit this for some reason. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tawker deleted Template:GNAA-AfD which attempts to give a (lkely incomplete) record of past nominations; I have restored the template since it's not obviously "pointless". Kimchi.sg 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse per Jimbo. ---J.S(T/C) 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if the lack of sources was really an issue, maybe someone should've added the tag to the page rather than putting it up for VfD... Dominotree 07:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid closure according to policy. Tizio 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% Endorse Deletion - the article didn't have any reliable sources. Regardless of its notability - unless there are verifiable, reliable sources, it should not be here. Why should we ignore long standing policy because people 'have heard of it'?-Localzuk(talk) 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Jimbo, only valid interpretation of policy. Letting it run would not have caused anyone to bring up some genuinely credible sources, because if that was possible they'd be doing it here, and they're not. And let's face it, the chances of that happening after so long are nil anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - if the delete lobby are so confident, it shouldn't have a problem with allowing due process. Also, rotectinga page to stop Wikipedians editing it is OTT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: The delete arguments in the discussion repeatedly stressed that the article did not meat WP:V, while the Keep arguments in response did not address this point (leaning instead on "it's a real group" and "it's never been deleted before.") Andrew Levine 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This article has been giving "due process" many, many times and it still does not pass WP:V and is even borderline WP:NOT. Trolls and trolling organizations are not inherently notable and you would be hardpress to make an argument that GNAA would pass a 20 year test much less a 100 year test. If this article was about a band, a movie, a book, or even a political organization it would be chucked many moons ago for lack of encyclopedic merit and notability. This article has survived as long as it did for the wrong reasons and it is time to let it rest. 205.157.110.11 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I saw a media account of their exploits on TV and they were mentioned in the Scotsman article, a reputable source. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is if the process was proper. Arguments based on "but I don't like the arguments from delete people!" are not relevant. -Amarkovblahedits 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, the Deletion was inappropriate because it ignored the fact that they were sources out there and that is why it should be overturned. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay then. That's a reason to overturn deletion. But the sources weren't ignored. That Scotsman article was a passing reference, and a TV appearance once without documentation somewhere is not verifiable. -Amarkovblahedits 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The television footage has been archived and is readily available, but how can an online video be cited as a source? Dominotree 07:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Beyond being a rather trivial mention in the Scotsman article (which wasn't specifically about GNAA) the article also appears to be heavily based on the information from the Wikipedia aritcle, which would sort of invalidate it as a reliable source anyway.--Isotope23 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per dozens of people above, and per Jimbo, and per the fact that, no matter how long the AfD stood, there was certainly a strong consensus. -- Kicking222 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the contributions on the page, there is a high volume of delete/redirect/merge contribs in the first 12 hours (24), then it drops down to 11 and 12 for the next chunks of 12 hours. On the contrary, the keep contribs reach a peak of 17 for the third period of 12 hours, then the AfD was closed. Hardly a strong consensus, and also very suspicious. How come no one mentions that? Sam Hocevar 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion. This article should have been deleted a long time ago, but, sadly, I think it became more of a running joke than a serious discussion. The closing administrator evaluated the discussion reasonably and made a correct decision. BigDT 02:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per everyone above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salt the earth. Not that I think there's much chance of keeping it deleted, but there just haven't been enough reliable sources to support an article, there's been more than enough time to do it, and things without reliable sources we have specifically chosen not to cover via WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. - Taxman Talk 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per everyone. I may be biased as I'd never heard of these guys before -- Samir धर्म 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, should've been trashed long ago. Kimchi.sg 04:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It was closed a bit fast, but not excessively so. The level of discussion was also high and had already become repetitive. Three more days would've simply resulted in an overly massive discussion that repeated points already made in the first two.--T. Anthony 05:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention the first SEVENTEEN DISCUSSIONS. Someone was afraid history would repeat itself. Dominotree 06:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First I'd additionally withdrawn my vote fearing conflict of interest. I'd be happy to strike it out if you wish. Second the article had been "speedy closed" and kept in many of the last AfD's. This was a more thorough discussion than a delete vote on this article has perhaps ever received. I had a feeling it would be "speedy kept" anyway no matter how the discussion went, but I was pleasantly surprised. Still if it was important you did have the time to copy the information and put it in an archive. Then if you found valid sources later you could try to recreate it. I started List of Roman Catholic Church musicians after the Catholic composers list was deleted and I'd found better sourcing.--T. Anthony 07:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Addendum. A few of the first Afd's had fairly thorough discussions, but mostly I'd say they were of poorer quality. The deleters tended to say "the article brings in a bad element" while the keepers at best said "I found them in a Google search, someone might look for them here." There are many things known on the Internet people might look for on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to provide them. For example Bewildering Stories was speedy deleted. It has a lower Alexa ranking, but it gets a fair amount of hits[3] and has published authors with articles. However it's a non-paying webzine that didn't meet notability. Jon Bromfield is known on science fiction forums and is also published in a webzine, but he doesn't merit an article either.--T. Anthony 11:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; Relist. Let's see, 18 AfD's and the last one is closed early. This smells like someone was afraid that they'd have to do a 19th. Really, it's petty. And I thought it was going to be open for more than all of two days so I put off voting until I had free time after work, and by then it was closed. Fishy and petty. -Ich (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; Relist. The fact that this article has been VfD'd eighteen times and survived seventeen is enough to prove it is noteworthy. It seems like people here are offended by the subject so they attempt to find any reason they can to hide behind to have it removed. If this is not the case, American Nihilist Underground Society should be VfD'd, as well as countless other pages. If you're going to VfD it, there's no point in waiting until there are enough votes to get the outcome you want and closing it early. That is just the same is making an arbitrary decision with no vote whatsoever. There is a reason there is a length on a VfD, and ending it early silenced many people including myself who would've been able to vote otherwise. Wikipedia is supposed to be about democracy and freedom of speech, but clearly many people in power here disagree. I think it was best put, "Are people allowed to just keep submitting stuff on AFD until they get a result they like?" Dominotree 06:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it says somewhere Wikipedia isn't a democracy. If you want to add information about GNAA to troll organization you may, provided the information is verified. As for the American Nihilist I was going to AfD when I read your post, but withdrew as it had been AfD'd just a month ago. Wait until I go back to full activity in January or until enough time has passed. (Whichever) Lastly I don't think the issue is controversy or anger at them. The last vote was mostly by people who have never dealt with them and saw the fact the article was using poor sourcing plus unverifiable claims. That the article had no notability as well. No one is going to delete Gay], Nigger, troll organization, or the Gay Men of African Descent(if they become wildly confused or are hateful) because of this.--T. Anthony 07:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying that this has "survived seventeen AfDs" is misleading at best; before this, there hadn't been a "real" AfD since around the 6th or so, and even those were sock-tastic messes. After that, the vast majority of them were simply trolling/vandalistic attempts intended to jack up the AfD count, along with an April Fools' Day joke nom. WarpstarRider 07:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely you can't call this one a real VfD either if you don't think any of the previous were valid. Dominotree 07:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And why not? This has had plenty of participation, and wasn't hijacked by (too many) socks. Most of the previous nominations were on the grounds that the GNAA were trolls. This one was on the basis that the article isn't sufficiently verifiable. You can argue about the legitimacy of the GNAA until the cows come home, but WP:V trumps all. It is above the rest of our policies, and cannot be overturned in AfD or DRv by "consensus". (This is clearly stated on that page, btw.) Chris cheese whine 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Past AFDs don't necessarily mean anything; see WP:CCC. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to suspicious circumstances. — CharlotteWebb 07:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, no suspicious circumstances here. A perfectly valid application of WP:SNOW. Chris cheese whine 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nearly half of votes being keep is equivalent to a "Snowball's chance in hell"? I think not. Dominotree 07:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • By my count there was 45 deletes and 29 keeps. This is not a 2-1 margin, but it does mean over 60% of the voters voted delete. Twenty-nine is not "nearly half" of 74, not in the normal sense.--T. Anthony 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfD is not a vote. The arguments put forward by the keep !voters were not relevant, not grounded in policy, and generally stuff along the lines of "GNAA is notable" (references?), "18 previous keeps" (including the vandal nominations), "deletionism gone mad" (no such thing as "deletionism", ffs). Arguments put forward by the delete !voters were "can't verify this" (which was true) and "most of the links are to gnaa.us" (also true). Ultimatum put forward was "source it or die". Article couldn't be sourced, so it died. Nothing suspicious about that at all - it's a perfect embodiment of our deletion policy and process. Chris cheese whine 08:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A 36-hours ultimatum is a perfect embodiment of the policy? You have to be kidding. Sam Hocevar 11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 36 hours? The article has been there at least two years. I think there's been more than enough time to source the article. Chris cheese whine 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is off-topic. What's discussed here is the way the article was deleted. (Oh, and in two years no one came up and tried to remove unsourced material?) Sam Hocevar 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion Even though I consider myself an inclusionist, the weight of the arguments fall on the deletion side and only a massive amount of sockpuppetry and pure vote counting could overturn that. In fact, looking at the previous AfD it is pretty clear that there was misrepresentation of the AfD process galore. There is no valid encyclopedic or WP policy reason to keep this article. It has spent years in it sorry state with no hope for improvement due to the lack content even available to write a quality article. The article will never pass WP:V or show even a glimmer of value to the project. At worse, it presence merely serves the purpose of making Wikipedia and our policies a joke. Agne 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sort of uncalled-for application of WP:SNOW and biased editors and administrators are making Wikipedia a joke. Dominotree 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a fan of WP:SNOW either but that still doesn't make up for the lack encyclopedic qualities in the article and its inability to pass the most basic of Wikipedia policies. AfD is not (and should not) be considered a vote so tallies are a pretty useless banner to wave. Now if you can find some reliable sources that can verify the article and demonstrate some redeeming qualities and encyclopedic worth, I will be one of the first to change my support. Agne 08:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So unsourced articles or articles based on un-reliable sources are less of a threat to Wikipedia's credibility than biased editors and administrators. Hmm. Kimchi.sg 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it is your perception that there are "bias editors and admins" involved here and it is your perception of whether or not that bias is a negative. On the flip side, one could say the sock puppets and the GNAA suppporters are "bias". Is that bias negative? My bias is towards encyclopedic worth and the potential of the article to contribute something worthwhile to the projection. This article's inability to pass the most basic of Wikipedia's policies and to have multiple non-trivial sources is a severe lacking and anyone with a bias towards creating a quality encyclopedia should be against this article and any other article in a similar situation. Frankly, we need more of that kind of bias. Agne 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As for the question asked, yes, unsourced articles are indeed less of a threat. Having less information than exists is far more credible than having more information than truly exists. -Amarkov blahedits 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without question looking at the deleted article it lacked a single reliable source - in fact almost every reference cited was the GNAA website itself. Sorry, deletion is warranted at this time  Glen  08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would the GNAA sleeper accounts please confine themselves to discussion here? We don't need the vandalism. Thanks. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Back in the mists of time, when there was the very first AfD about GNAA, I voted to delete. I have not changed my mind, and I only voted in one of the re-runs. Essentially, if there are no names back there, no persons, then it is impossible to verify any fact about the site. Secondly, it is an organization that has no actual stable membership criterion, and therefore no operative character. Thirdly, the organization is a name rather than a thing. Can we have an article on a name? It's possible, if it then goes on to generate multiple 3rd party non-trivial discussion. Any time we're dealing with Internet ephemera, there is no way to have a biography or profile. This is in addition to the general vandal magnetism. Finally, if people against including this article sat on their hands with the multiple re-runs, or if they were supposed to, according to the advocates of the article, then those who are in favor of the article should also respect the process. Geogre 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly does all this have to do with reviewing the deletion process? Sam Hocevar 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You claim above that it should be overturned and relisted to waste yet more time because the arguments didn't get a chance to be heard. They're being heard now, and no one is making any effort to find reliable sources. Failing finding those, policy is that the article should stay deleted. There's really no point in process wonking for the sake of it, for once lets just go with whats best and follows our content policies. - Taxman Talk 00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and deletion - at the time of closure, WP:SNOW seemed the appropriate call with the discussion heavily stacked in favor of the deletion. Sometimes it doesn't need five days to determine if it's time for the article to go.B.Wind 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Truly, this is an excellent example of why I keep railing against WP:SNOW. If this was closed properly, there would be absolutely no legitimate argument available. Instead, there's still a cloud. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SNOW applies because no matter how many people voted keep, the WP:V policy cannot be trumpted by consensus. A reliable source could still be presented here but it has not. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a "cloud", that's some people blowing smoke. There's a simple remedy that none of the "keep"/"overturn" voters have availed them of, I notice: provide the actual multiple reliable sources that have been asked for, otherwise the whining about policy is just so much hot air and hand-waving. <Waiting> Well, don't everybody all speak up at once. --Calton | Talk 15:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist. Speedy deleting a page which has survived prior AfD's is in direct contradiction of policy. WP:SPEEDY states (under A7) that pages which have survived previous AfD's should be put through the deletion process, they cannot be speedied. Speedying a page which has this amount of debate history to it is particularly careless. WP:SNOW is only for non-controversial cases. The closure was in violation of policy, and invalid. --tjstrf talk 03:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? It's not even CLOSE to a speedy to close an AfD discussion early. -Amarkov blahedits 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion because article had no sources, was not verifiable, and referred to an extremely trivial bit of the Slashdot community. (and not because it was a racist name or a troll group) 132.205.93.32 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion A long-overdue deletion of a non-encyclopedic article --Mhking 04:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - At long last... let the thing die. I can't believe people are actually advocating digging up the body and reanimating it just so we can kill it more slowly. It was a mass of original research, and in 18 AfDs, not one person came up with one reliable source in which the GNAA received non-trivial coverage. It had so much more than its 5 days, and it failed, failed, failed, for months. Let it be dead, already. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - all that would have been gained by not being bold and closing this discussion would have been a massive flame war. While "per Jimbo" should be cited cautiously, his message on the list quite clearly sums up the reasons for deletion which many voters hinted at in the AFD. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion - no reliable sources, not encyclopedic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion Article is unverifiable. If an article is not verifiable, it must be deleted. Dionyseus 05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion. Blog sources, self-promotional? Why did we allow this in the first place? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Per everyone above who stated that after all this time, if there were a decent source we would have found it. Marginal group anyway, no reason to give them free press. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion close was fine...nn.--MONGO 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I am very unenthusiastic about this article and I considered voting delete while it was going on (but decided not to vote either way). However, to close the debate early in a case like this, with such a history behind the issue, such broad participation and such controversy, is very wrong. Process should be followed. There is nothing to be afraid of by letting it run three more days. If it swings back the other way, then that would illustrate how wrong it was to close early; if it stayed the same, then we'd have done it by the book and we'd have no need for misgivings. As it stands, this looks worryingly like someone simply decided to close while the tally was on their side. Obviously we can't stand for something like that. Everyking 12:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, this looks worryingly like someone simply decided to close while the tally was on their side. No -- as a quick glance at this page should tell you -- it was a case of bowing to the inevitable. --Calton | Talk 15:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose we could have waited on the inevitable for three more days, then, instead of having all this controversy now. Everyking 08:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if this was closed at the predetermined time, this DRV would stillbe happening, it is the GNAA after all. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the point is now, the AfD has been closed, so reopening it is just process wonking. It's just process wonking because it ignores what the obvious conclusion is and just wastes more time. Instead of endless rounds of timewasting, lets just end it here and now. No one has made an effort here to come up with reliable sources, and until that happens it's a clear cut case. - Taxman Talk 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a big advocate of "process wonking". Everything functions better when we follow our own rules and procedures. If we had let this run its course, the outcome would have been (as I said above) either a reversed trend towards keeping, which would have illustrated the error of closing early, or it would have concluded with a delete result in a relatively uncontroversial manner, saving us all a lot of "timewasting" here on DRV. And it isn't worthwhile to complain about reliable sources here; that's a matter for the AfD voters to decide. Everyking 08:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. The close logic was similar to that of the Encyclopedia Dramatica close, and I find it similarly persuasive. Encyclopedic articles need to be properly sourced; that's not negotiable. The early close was fine; I loves me some process, but this is a case where it's completely obvious that there were, quite simply, no persuasive "keep" arguments to be made. I do suggest that we learn from that debate's followon, and keep the article (and its talk page) protected for at least a year, barring some extraordinary and unlikely event, such as a Sunday New York Times Magazine article on GNAA. Nandesuka 12:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, valid sources or not, it was out of process to close after 2 days. WP:SNOW doesn't cover an articles's 18th AFD leaning toward delete unless it was unanimous. This DRV is ending up like an AFD, and most people are just posting oh, no valid sources, delete. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not unheard of to end AfD's early. The article was given more discussion than most are on deletion. Five days worth would've simply made the Afd's page inordinately long and unmanageable. There, I gave you reasons not like an AfD's.--T. Anthony 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would, you know, a valid reason and a, you know, direct endorsement of the rationale for deleting it to begin with. Or perhaps you have some valid sources you've held in reserve all this time you'd like to share with the rest of us? --Calton | Talk 15:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you discount the votes that don't take policy into account then it was pretty much unanimous. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, recommend permanantly salting - this is absolutely ridiculous. Every AfD from the 11th to the 17th was improperly done, the article was improprerly kept, there are no sources, it is not verifiable, and most of the Overturn votes here are from people who don't like certain policies. Some of the overturns here are completely violating any semblance of logic. I am sick of people twisting every type of logic they can find to save absolute crap. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It doesn't matter how horrible you think breaking process is, because in this case, it's justified. Two and a half years and still no reliable sources? WP:V is a POLICY - not a guideline - here on Wikipedia, and the subject of the GNAA still continues to fail it. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse not verifiable, no reliable sources.--Docg 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I see a comment by TrollHistorian at the bottom of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28 which belongs here, but I can't find that comment on the page when I edit it. A little help? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just the opening statement for this DRV, and it's already at the head of this page. I think it's just part of the transclusion, as far as I can tell. WarpstarRider 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. By the way, make this page and the GNAA-AfD template linkable from GNAA talk page please. SYSS Mouse 05:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbitary Support because it seems a total waste of time to argue about thos until some reliable sources emerge. --Spartaz 08:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Closed early despite lack of consensus; Closer admints that he's incorrectly applying WP:DENY to the mainspace; it's pretty obvious that opinion on this article calcified without consensus a long time ago. BCoates 15:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus really doesn't matter, as it can't overrule WP:V, which nobody really brought up before.- Amarkov blahedits 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying everyone agreed that it violated WP:V? I find it hard to believe anyone would vote keep if they considered the article unverifiable. More likely some people didn't agree—in this case, what you're saying is individual decision-making trumps collective decision-making, because one person can say an article is unverifiable and refuse to allow the group to decide it. One could say "I have an 80% majority against me, but I choose to delete the article anyway, because it's unverifiable, and consensus can't overrule the verifiability policy." It's absurd. The group, not the individual, must decide on whether the article satisfies WP:V. Everyking 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To put it another way, consensus is all that matters, and opinions that go against policy do not count towards consensus. It is not a vote, the validity of one's opinion is taken into account. If you discount the opinions that ignore policy then it was clear cut. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist all out-of-process early AfD closures. ~ PseudoSudo 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as it is clearly warranted per WP:V and WP:RS and many of the reasoned arguments above. Let's move on. —Doug Bell talk 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for the same reliable source issues given in the afd. feydey 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America&oldid=1144413955"