Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria

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

The result of the debate was proof that I can't even get my own submissions deleted. Good night. — May. 14, '06 [10:39] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Gnaa, Nigeria[edit]

Self-nomination: I wrote this article. I don't see any potential for expanding this, due to the lack of verifiable information on this non-notable town. Furthermore, it's only been a target for vandalism and editing disputes with regards to the target of the gnaa redirect. — May. 13, '06 [03:31] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Keep. While it may be a substub for a while, it's a real town, and deleting it will just further systemic bias. --Rory096 03:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Gnaa redirect is just a content dispute, no reason to delete an article because of a dispute over whether a redirect to it should be going somewhere else! --Rory096 03:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rory, particularly the fighting systemic bias part. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protect Article The town looks insigificant but based on population there are towns with less population here like Yountville so I can't legitimately give that as a reason for deletion. I think the article should be kept protected because of vandalism (an example). Also, if deleted it might be recreated. DyslexicEditor 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as all real places, like cities, towns, neighborhoods, villages, etc are always notable. Carioca 04:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for most of the reasons above. There may be more verifiable information in future to allow expansion from the current stub. There are Nigerian wikipedians. Maybe it should be semi-protected. --Bduke 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect. Grandmasterka 04:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article is notable and has a potential of being expanded. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 04:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep other equally unnotable real places are kept. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but the latter places have verifiable information pertaining to them. — May. 13, '06 [04:51] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Keep, providing that there is verifiable information available about this place. I would welcome Freakofnurture's advice as a respected Wikipedian on the sources that he used to write the article and whether he remains confident of the town's existence. If they exist, I vote to keep real towns,villages, suburbs and other communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nada. Note also that the only result (outside of Wikipedia mirrors and Gay Nigger Association of America press releases, e.g. [1]) is this dubious link. I haven't ruled out the possibility of elaborate hoaxing. — May. 13, '06 [05:40] <freakofnurxture|talk>
      • That doesn't seem so dubious, that site has information on a lot of places... Also, there's this link, which actually does seem to be rather unreliable. --Rory096 05:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go back down the URL to [2]. It is clearly not a hoax. I checked some of the other places in Nigeria that I know and some here in Australia. It is an amazing site for geographical and weather detail. --Bduke 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, while Google didn't get a match, it didn't get one for Ajav, either, which is apparently a nearby town. --Rory096 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, it didn't get one for the entire state! [3]. --Rory096 06:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean a GNAA hoax? Mind you, that would be right up their alley, given the relative closeness of the words "Nigeria" and "nigger". CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as we have articles on even the smallest of towns. -- Kjkolb 05:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-05-13 05:44
  • Keep, real places are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 08:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable to me, it's been mentioned in one of my geography lectures! (and this was before I knew of the GNAA --Sunfazer | Talk 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're sure it exists? Do you have any more information on it? It would be nice to have it be bigger than a substub. --Rory096 19:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sunfazer, see also WP:CSB. — mark ✎ 17:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all real cities, regardless of their size, so long as they are verifiable. [4] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 20:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except the fact that it violates WP:V, except for the GNAA press releases part. — May. 14, '06 [05:39] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Comment. For verifiability see:

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/NI/0/Gnaa.html
http://www.fallingrain.com/world/NI/a/G/n/
http://nona.net/features/map/placedetail.2245072/Gnaa/
These are verifiable proof that Gnaa in Nigeria exists, therefore WP:V isn't violated. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gnaa,_Nigeria&oldid=1137882375"