Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination)

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 was speedy keep. Per apparent consensus here and at AN/I, I'm closing this as a disruptive nomination. Anyone who would like to nominate it for a good faith AfD should feel free to do so after a reasonable interval. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guilford Native American Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Guilford Native American Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More GNAA padding. Non-notable, non-profit organization. Doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Most of the "sources" are merely trivial mentions of the organization. On top of all this, its only claim to fame is that it attempts to "assist Indian people in achieving social and economic self-sufficiency" LiteralKa (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The 40 Google Books search results helpfully linked in the nomination statement go back to 1978, so I don't see how this can possibly be related in any way to the GNAA. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was added by an editor (along with a few other articles) with the clear intention of creating other pages that use GNAA as an acronym. LiteralKa (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see extensive discussion of this group going back decades in the Google News Archive and on Google Books. This article has existed since 2005 and has been extensively edited since it was created. I see no need to delete it over six years later because of speculation about the intentions of its creator back then. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: you say that like I presented it being GNAA padding as the only reason. That was merely to provide background on the article, not a reason. LiteralKa (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. If you have some issue with association with some other subject, then removing the use of that acronym would be a simpler solution. And actually it was not present when the nomination was made. I also wonder why did you created such associations? Anyway, this assiciation does not look much notable, deletig would not hurt anything, it seems. - Nabla (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The associations were there when the nomination was made, as GNAA was a disambiguation page listing this as one of the ambiguous meanings. As for your assertion that this doesn't look very notable, that sounds like a weak delete vote (if you were planning on voting.) (Also, is English not your first language or something? It's getting kinda hard to understand you...) LiteralKa (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The associations were there because you created them. - Nabla (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. LiteralKa simply moved the former contents of "GNAA" to "GNAA_(disambiguation)". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you for explaining without the snappy remarks, it gets so much easier to understand that way. I have striked the related comments above, so not to confuse readers. - Nabla (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thanks for understanding. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all sources are passing mentions, no significant coverage. Zalgo (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, only claim to notability is attempting to "assist Indian people." That70sdonna (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — That70sdonna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete claim to notability is weak, interest seems to be local only, and it's not relevant as seen by the lack of other articles citing this one. death metal maniac (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — two main reasons: 1. it's notable. 2. It's a bad-faith nomination to clear out the GNAA disambiguation. --slakr\ talk / 09:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references go beyond trivial, and Slakr is right to call bullshit above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trout the nominator There are plenty of sources in Gnews attribiuted to the The Greensboro News and Record, The Robesonian, and a few articles in others such as The Mount Airy Times. Trout the nominator for doing a poor search, and asserting that the organization's goals are somehow unimportant. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jethrobot above - passes the notability guideline, if narrowly. This article may or may not have been created for bad-faith reasons; but even if it was, this AFD also seems to have been created in bad faith; and in any case, none of that matters. All that matters is that it passes the notability test. Robofish (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Slakr and LiteralKa's massive clueless-ness.  Diego  talk  18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal attacks, Diego. LiteralKa (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're free to think that is an attack; it may be, but yes, you are clueless, otherwise you wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion without any kind of foundation. I don't see you even tried to search for sources, when there are plenty outside. That is, in my opinion, to be clueless. You're just attempting to disrupt the encyclopedia, and for being the Director of Public Relations of the so-called troll organization you represent, you have a massive COI. Quit the project, for the good of everyone.  Diego  talk  18:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." LiteralKa (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then here's a suggestion: Do a better job at following WP:BEFORE and mind your WP:COI, because it will not help your case in making these nominations. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did follow WP:BEFORE, and all I found is trivial, passing mentions. There is/was a severe lack of significant coverage. LiteralKa (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 40 book references or so, news articles online, etc. The nomination is unsound given that there are clearly many-many references for this subject. snaphat (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. While there are a lot of hits in GNews and GBooks, few of them are useful for building an article. Many of them are indeed passing mentions and annoucements of events. Also, the vast majority of the online sources are local. It would be handy if keep voters addressed these issues (content-poor refs, local refs), and maybe edit the article to reflect, before this nomination is closed. Christopher Connor (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The state of the article isn't relevant for the purpose of saying whether or not its subject is notable. All that matters is whether or not there is enough 3rd party coverage to justify its existence. Whether or not these sources are local is also irrelevant as Wikipedia has no policy regarding this (I assume by local, you mean published within the same state that the GNAA exists). Even if many of the references simply mention it in passing there are a number that do not, such as, Congress proceedings, An Economic Development Assessment for GNAA by the Office of Economic Development, Kenan Institute, UNC-Chapel Hill, and the NC publication mentioned by user Johnpacklambert. Those alone are more than enough references to keep the article. snaphat (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources to justify having this article. It may need to have more included, although it looks like even the included sources are enough. The question is not are the sources included, used or linked to, but do they exist, at least when the argument is about an article on a real organization or group. When the discussion is focused not so much on "do we need an article covering this" but "does it make sense to have an article with this name", well then it is a different matter. This organization clearly exists and reputable publications that are not connected with it publish articles on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Univeristy of North Catrolina publication is probably the strongest source for keeping among those listed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Honestly, this deletion seems to be motivated by the GNAA uber-controversy Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sources. Kaldari (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (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/Guilford_Native_American_Association_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089098094"