Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Gay Nigger Association of America 1.1 Keep Votes 1.2 Delete Votes 1.3 Other Votes 1.4 Comments 1.5 Votes with questionable provenance 1.5.1 Keep Votes 1.5.2 Delete Votes 2 Proposed solution

[edit] Gay Nigger Association of America

Apparently this was up for deletion in September. No consensus was reached. To me it looks like a clear case of trivia--they're basically "self-aggrandizing trolls" who infest Slashdot. As a longtime Slashdot user I've never heard of them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: As of 12:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC), the original nominator, Tony Sidaway, withdrew his vote for deletion and changed to keep. (see below)

---

"Items sent here usually wait five days or so", it's been more than six days, delisting. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:01, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Candidates stay on VFD for five days, after which they are moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. This page was moved there yesterday, Dec 30 (after five days on VFD — it was created on Dec 25). Although voting can still take place, any sysop can decide to judge whether consensus was reached and take the appropriate action. Quoting from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old:

This page contains Votes for Deletion listings that have finished their voting period and are eligible for either deletion or removal from the list as appropriate following the deletion process. Sysops can delete those articles for which a consensus to delete has been achieved. You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time.

Paul August ☎ 20:26, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

---

Previous VfDs

• April 30, 2004 – May 7, 2004
• September 2, 2004 – September 8, 2004
• September 27, 2004 – October 5, 2004
• May 1, 2004.

Due to the large volume of votes, one of our editors thought it might be helpful to use enumerated voting for votes to keep and votes to delete. It's too late to change this format now, but please note that you are not restricted to these 2 options! Votes to move, redirect, declare invalid etc. still count as usual. If you want to make such a vote, if your vote has a component to it other than pure keep or delete, if a vote has attracted much discussion, or if you're unsure, consider making or moving it to the section marked Other below the two main blocks.

[edit] Keep Votes

1. Keep, and anyone who wants my opinion as to why has only to look at my extensive commentary found in the last two Vfd pages. Whoever raised this 5th vfd, well done. You're accomplishing nothing, except to gain our fine organization even more publicity. GNAA Popeye 16:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Actually, the nominator is now one of the keep voters. Xezbeth 16:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

   LOL! GNAA Popeye

2. Keep. Anyone who reads slashdot regularly will have encountered them. The constant VfDs of this article are trolling themselves.jdb 18:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Oddly, I never have. I read slashdot on at least level 3 so I seldom if ever see anything remotely trollish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   I read at level 5, but I used the controls to add 6 points to 'Troll', 'Offtopic', and 'Flamebait' comments, so I see all of them. Many comments so labeled are genuinely amusing, and many others are the victim of obvious moderator bias, especially on stories that discuss U.S. politics). jdb 05:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   You'll find that some of the most insightful comments are found at -1 because of the rampant groupthink at Slashdot. Don't let your pride get in the way. :) --Lysol 18:47, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

3. Keep. Notable enough. --SPUI 19:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Keep. Well known group. Jamesday 20:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Keep, notable trolling group -- Rhobite 20:18, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
6. Keep, where's the harm? -- kmccoy (talk) 20:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Keep, as usual... *sigh* Sam Hocevar 20:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Keep. How many times must we go through this? Three attempts and three keeps, time to let it go, whatever you feel about the article. Gamaliel 21:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Keep. I must concur with Gamaliel's sentiment. Also, you'll probably only see GNAA stuff on Slashdot if you set your threshold to 0 or -1. dma 21:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Indeed. Only trolls and their fans (and, alas, now Wikipedians) seem to have heard of these people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

10. Keep. Isn't it a rule that no article be listed on VfD if it's already survived in a form that isn't radically different? And Dma, if I'm not mistaken, just shot down the lister's main argument. -- Kizor 21:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
12. keep. A fourth VfD is an abuse of itself. Yuckfoo 22:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has been a member less than a month.

    Additionally, appears to be removing and rearranging legitimate Delete votes from this page. Lots of edits to this vfd.

    that is a bald-face lie. only questionable votes have been rearranged. my user history otherwise speaks for itself. furthermore, it has been previously agreed upon on vfd talk that numbered voting is unacceptable. Yuckfoo 01:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has been a member more than a month. On this planet, months usually have 31 days or less. Also, user has more than 200 edits. Sam Hocevar 10:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    No reason given to suspect this account. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • This user's creation predates this VfD. --216.24.174.245 00:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    No reason given to suspect this account. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

13. Keep, notable enough for me. Sietse 22:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Keep or merge Established notability in article, also very well organized and surprisingly NPOV considering that the GNAA actively trolls Wikipedia. If anything merge some or all of content into Slashdot trolling phenomena, although I think this is less appropriate since clearly the GNAA trolls other places then Slashdot. Masterhomer 22:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
15. Keep -- 00:02, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
16. Keep, Jesus fucking Christ, not again. This is ridiculous. --Bk0 01:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
17. Keep, this is the fourth time they have been listed. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
18. Keep. I knew this would one day come up again. And I also knew what my vote would be. Article may need some trivia cleanup, but definitely meets our objective standards. We're here to vote on the subjective part, and I say keep. JRM 01:33, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
19. Keep, on account of the repeated VfDs if nothing else. Having survived that many VfDs should indicate something about its worthiness of inclusion. Bryan 02:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
20. Despite the presence of the names of ome very honourable and admirable Wikipedians under the delete header, I feel that the only reasonable vote here is to Keep. More notable than Wayne Hills High School or Pope Michael and just as notable as say All your base are belong to us... Come on, people, give it up. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
21. Keep. It's an article. Why on earth would you delete an article? They are trolls, true, but I don't see Troll getting deleted... --Roguelazer 03:23, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

    User has fifteen edits.

    Account predates VfD by over a week. ElBenevolente 16:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    So what? Kosebamse 11:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Guys, I'm not a drone. Sorry to burst your bubble. Can you please put this back where it belongs? --Roguelazer 01:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

    Erm, this does belong here. You are a "new user", are you not? And your vote was questioned? Obviously the suspicions didn't pan out, so your vote counts like any other. This is not the "ignore these votes" section, or the "confirmed criminals" section. Also see my comments on Cwydian's vote. JRM 01:54, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

22. I think not. Guanaco 04:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
23. I've voted to keep before and I'll do it again. I believe the GNAA is a notable enough part of Internet culture. The article is surprisingly well-written--it's neutral, relatively verifiable, and doesn't tend towards excess. Simply wanting the GNAA to "go away" or to leave Wikipedia alone is not, in my opinion, a well-thought-out rationale for deleting the article. --Slowking Man 04:23, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
24. Weak Keep. I don't know which I find more bothersome: the GNAA or this filibustering of VFD. -- Bobdoe 04:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
25. Keep. ElBenevolente 04:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
26. Keep. At this point, the continuous failing VfDs have proven that the GNAA are here to stay. Andre (talk) 05:14, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
27. Keep. It's getting to the stage where the repeated listings on VfD are worthy of a section of the article. -- Chuq 05:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    I believe you just explained why there are so many keep votes. Apparently people think that if something becomes well-known among Wikipedians, that has something to do with its importance in the wider world. Isomorphic 07:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    I happen to agree with Chuq and will make the proper edits once this trainwreck concludes. GRider\^talk 17:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

28. Keep this time and keep every time deletionists and censors list it.Dr Zen 06:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
29. Keep. I had heard of them long before they got involved with wikipedia, and besides, we have many things less notable. The very fact that this was listed here so many times is symptomatic that there are deeper issues that should be resolved that can't be solved just by listing the page on VfD. Yelyos 06:56, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
30. Keep. Here we go again. -- Dv 07:58, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

    User has 19 edits total, three of which to this page. Kosebamse 08:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Account is over five months old. ElBenevolente 16:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    No reason given to suspect this account. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Essentially a vote-puppet with a few other edits to fool us . Kosebamse 11:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    This frivolous accusation basically denies minor contributors the right to vote. If this vote does not count and yours does, then why don't I get three votes? Sam Hocevar 13:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • This user's creation predates this VfD. --155.207.113.227 05:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
31. Keep Notable enough. Sillydragon 08:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
32. Keep. They've managed to establish notability for themselves. --Carnildo 09:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    ...mostly by persistent trolling of Wikipedia. Kosebamse 09:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

33. Keep They're notable and these vfds are just making them more notable. :) Bogdan | Talk 09:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
34. Keep. Quoting directly from Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." Dan100 10:15, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
35. Keep. Samaritan 11:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
36. Keep. Had I realised that there had been numerous prior failed VfD attempts, I would not have submitted this VfD. Whatever my personal feelings on the validity of this article (and they have not changed), my nomination has acquired an appearance of vindictiveness that was not intended. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    So let me get this straight, You nominated this page for Deletion, voted Delete, then noted that other people had previouslly nominated to VfD it, so to prove you aren't suffering from Groupthink, you acknowledge you still believe it should be deleted and vote Keep? That is some wild-ass logic! (no offense meant, of course). 192.94.73.2 18:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    No, I don't see where I wrote anywhere that I'm trying to prove that I don't suffer from groupthink. I regard intentional relisting of articles that have repeatedly failed to raise a consensus as an abuse of process. I had listed the article in ignorance of its history on VfD. Now I am no longer ignorant of that history. I cannot withdraw my VfD nomination but I can vote against it. It is true that I still regard the article as a vanity piece. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Just a suggestion, Tony, from left field, but perhaps next time you are considering listing an article for deletion, you might read its talkpage first? Also, checking its history will show that many editors in very good standing have worked on this page, which rather suggests it does not meet the criterion for "vanity".Dr Zen 03:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

37. Keep -- they are infantile vandals, but they have succeeding in becoming notable infantile vandals ➥the Epopt 15:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
38. Keep. Same reasons as the times before, I'll write a long article about why to keep it for the 5th time... not. Philip Nilsson 15:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
39. Changing my vote to Keep. All this fuss must mean some form of documentation should exist. I don't read sites like Slashdot (for many obvious reasons), but I feel they have established themselves enough to be part of a paperless encyclopedia. Norman Rogers\^talk 15:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
40. Keep. Eleven? That's ridiculous, that's not even funny! Grue 19:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
41. Keep: Making a mockery of process, notable etc. etc. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:31, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
42. Keep. Seriously. how often do we have to go through this? -- Ferkelparade π 20:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
43. Keep. Previous VfD votes clearly demonstrated that there is no consensus to delete, and I agree with the widespread feeling that once an article has survived VfD it should be left in peace for a while, probably three to six months. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
44. Keep. They're even a legend of sorts on Wikipedia now. Can we just let this rest once and for all? I mean, it is a trollmagnet, yes, but... --Node 00:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
45. Keep. Even if it were not too soon after the last VfD, which it is. Mindspillage 00:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
46. Keep. Very well known. -Ld | talk 01:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
47. Keep was my previous vote. Notable, but stupid. Mikkalai 03:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
48. Extreme keep. "As a longtime Slashdot user I've never heard of them" is the most fucking hillarious thing I've heard all year. And we're getting close to the end here, folks. —RaD Man (talk) 07:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
49. Keep Let us be consistent: they're trolls alright, but they are no less notable than all the obscure wrestlers or B-series actors we have pages on. Phils 19:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
50. Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
51. Keep. The deletionist trolling and manipulation of votes by biased admins makes a double mockery of the entire VfD process. This entire listing is invalid. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
52. Keep Squash 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) See comments
53. Keep - again. I wish this trolling would stop. Intrigue 00:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
54. Keep. Mod parent down! Deletionist vandals must be stopped. Trollminator 22:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Moved from the questionable votes; this guy has been here for a while and has made legit edits. --SPUI 00:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    And now moved back after someone reverted my move. --SPUI 01:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    It appears that User:Neutrality is responsible for all of these questionable moves to the questionable votes section. Neutrality: please stop playing with the votes. —RaD Man (talk) 01:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    This user has been around a few months and has many edits. On what grounds has it been removed? Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    And same question about Yuckfoo's vote. Sam Hocevar 03:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

55. Keep - Big enough impact on Slashdot and various other communities to be considered noteworthy. :: DarkLordSeth 02:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
56. Keep, for the nth time! -- This vote is for inclusion with this and any and all potential future repeats of this poll. Ropers 02:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
57. Keep. We should have a policy that allows sysops to unilaterally de-list the VFD attempt for this article. --Yath 03:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
58. Keep. Been here, done that. --Golbez 03:26, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
59. Keep. Why don't we add a "gay nigger" clause to the wikipedia bylaws against frivolous VfD listing of articles? That would solve this problem and a lot of my and everyone else's time spent reading this. If the article has been seen as "unworthy" before, and dodged the bullet, then evolved further, lather, rinse, repeat, how is it more "deleteable" now? Ich 03:40, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
60. Keep Enough is enough. How many times must this survive VFD before we call it an article? This is getting to be fscking stupid. Agree with Ich, there needs to be some fix for this. (ack, forgot to login, re-signing my vote with my proper account) --TexasDex 06:00, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
61. Keep. See my comments on previous VfD's. Constantly relisting the same pages over and over is an abuse of VfD. Digamma 08:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
62. Keep this fascinating page. The Recycling Troll 19:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
63. Keep GNAA is a real organization, why can't Wikipedia have an article on it? --Flockmeal 04:28, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
64. Keep for the same reasons Flockmeal has provided. Scott Gall 04:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
65. Keep. If Sollog merits an article, how is it that GNAA does not? Edeans 06:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
66. Keep There are so many stupid articles in Wikipedia, it whould be not fair to delete this one. Walter 12:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
67. OMG Keep Weren't FOUR VfDs enough for you kids? Dominotree 17:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
68. Keep Because of these 4 VFDs and all the squabble --Anthony Liekens 17:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
69. Keep Reasons can be read in previous vfds. --Lysol 18:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
70. Keep - For the simple fact that the subject of deleting this article has already come up before and the decision has been to keep it. -- Judson 21:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
71. Keep. Obviously it provides a source of information, gathered in one place, that isn't found elsewhere. Isn't this what an encyclopedia does? --SaturnSL1WNY 19:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Total of ten edits, all to GNAA pages or his user page. Kosebamse 20:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    This user's creation predates this VfD. --216.24.174.245 00:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    So what? Kosebamse 11:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Well, if this user's creation predates VfD, he can't be a sockpuppet created for the express purpose of skewing the vote. So his vote ought to stay. --Rolloffle 03:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

72. Keep. Notable. --Nasrallah 01:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has 23 edits. —OvenFresh☺ 02:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • This user's creation predates this VfD. [1] --Rolloffle 07:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    On nasrallah:

    User has less than 25 edits, almost all top project pages and Arbcom pages. Neutrality^talk 17:07, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

    Account predates VfD by over two weeks. ElBenevolente 17:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    No reason given to suspect this account. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

73. Keep They are notable; there's even an article concerning them on plastic.com (http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=04/10/06/05263410) Vetta2 17:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has less than 50 edits. Neutrality^talk 17:16, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

    Account is over two months old. ElBenevolente 17:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    On what grounds was this vote removed? Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • This user's creation predates this VfD.
74. Strong Keep The fact that this is the FOURTH VfD in under 6 months for this article shows it's relavence. Wikipedia needs (among more bandwidth and servers) a policy against against VfD abuse by users like Grunt and Pat Gunn. cptchipjew 20:00, 29 Dec 2004 (PST)

    Comment: To OvenFresh and others who are deleting votes, this account was created 22:32, 14 Mar 2004. Do not delete votes. GRider\^talk 21:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

75. Keep. How many VfDs are there to come? stop listing this, if there have been numerous decisions to keep it here! --Musschrott 16:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has less than 50 edits. Neutrality^talk 17:10, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

    Please stop removing people who vote differently to you. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Account is over five months old. ElBenevolente 17:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    So what if they have less than 50 edits? Removing valid votes is extremely disturbing. Mark Richards 01:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • This user's creation predates this VfD.
76. Keep on the grounds that there appears to be a consensus not to delete. This does not imply that I find it a valid article --JuntungWu 05:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
77. Lirath Q. Pynnor I am a gay nigger and I take offense at this immoral deletion campaign against my peoples.
78. Keep, obviously. iMeowbot~Mw 16:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
79. Keep, salva veritate. --Ryan! | Talk 17:46, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
80. Keep... Here we go again! Goat-see 06:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
81. Keep. Round 5, this is getting ridiculous. It hasn't gone down in the previous four, it's not going down now. --Empedocles 17:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has four edits. —OvenFresh☺ 02:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    And your point is? This account was created long before this VfD (as noted by the multipotent Rolloffle). The fact that I have four edits has no bearing on this situation. You have no grounds to question the provenance of this account. --Empedocles 21:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    This is getting very annoying. Neutrality, OvenFresh, please stop moving my vote. -Empedocles 11:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    This user's creation predates this VfD. [2] --Rolloffle 07:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Comment: To second what is noted above by Rolloffle, this user has edits dating back to 06:10, 10 Jul 2004. Like it or not, this particular VfD has obviously garnered a great deal of attention, hence the high voter turnout. There is no reason to censor or suspect this person given the age of the account and its history. Please do not vandalize the voting process. en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Empedocles GRider\^talk 17:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

82. Keep, I'd never heard of them before but judging by this VfD, they must be at least a little notable.

    Comment: Above vote left at 17:11, 31 Dec 2004 by LunaticFringe (unsigned). GRider\^talk 17:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Votes

1. Delete, but I'm convinced VfDing for a 4th time is pushing it. Xezbeth 15:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

   Four times? Good grief! If I'd known I wouldn't have bothered. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   That's okay. Now that you've admitted your mistake, cancel the VfD.

   A nominator cannot withdraw a valid VfD. The VfD should run its course. Those agreeing with me that there have been way to many VfDs already can vote "keep" as I do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. Delete. Some people will vote keep just because it survived this long, which is a disgrace. Slashdot hooligan vanity. If this is notable, then we should throw in the towel on VfD, and allow anything into the Wikipedia. --BM 16:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • To be honest, it's pretty disgraceful that this has been nominated for VfD four times simply because they disagree with the activities described in the entry. --Rolloffle 22:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Delete, blown out of proportion, not notable. silsor 16:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
4. Strong delete. It only got kept last time because a bunch of GNAA members joined up and voted to keep it, as I recall (although there were a number of entirely legit votes). Everyking 16:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Delete BrokenSegue 17:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Delete. —Korath^会話 17:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Delete. Vanity. Neutrality^talk 17:45, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

   Delete. They've had their fun. We have been trolled [3], now its time to get rid of this. Norman Rogers\^talk 18:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

8. Delete. Antandrus 18:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. Delete. Gazwim 18:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Delete Article does not establish notability, beyond posting some crap on some websites and leaking some OSX screenshots. Not notable enough for an article. Trollcruft. Merge into an article about trolling, if someone feels dedicated enough to bother. Tuf-Kat 18:59, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
11. Delete, but now that you've brought attention to it again, expect more trolling from them here. Adam Bishop 19:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Delete as usual. Perhaps it would get rid of them. — Dan | Talk 19:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Excuse me, but lol. Sam Hocevar 20:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

13. Delete. or merge in an article on trolling if someone feels like it. Or not. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Delete - let's see if we can get through this without people believing a bunch of sockpuppets screaming "we're important" again. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    With respect, I'm not a sock puppet just because I have voted to keep the article on this notable trolling group. What I am is longstanding administrator in this project and a developer who is aware of the group and recognises that, aside from the silly trolling here, the group is notable. Do remember that any developer, me included, is able to chek for sock puppets on request. The usual result of such a check is an absence of sock puppets. I'll be happy to check this VfD, or any other, on request, if there appears any significant chance of the result being changed. Jamesday 20:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet checks are inherently limited and don't detect astroturfing. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    And why would you be screaming "we're important"? -- Cyrius|✎ 21:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

15. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
16. Delete. Not particularly notable, and keeping this article only aids their campaign of self-aggrandizement. Isomorphic 19:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
17. Delete. Don't feed the trolls - David Gerard 20:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Can't see that one in the deletion policy.Dr Zen 03:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

18. Delete - Nunh-huh 20:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
19. Delete, like spammers, trolls are not inherently notable until they've at least had some documented stays in prison for it. Wyss 20:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
20. Delete as usual. You've had your fun, kids, now go play outside and stop bothering the grownups. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
21. Delete, again, same reason. - RedWordSmith 20:50, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
22. Delete. They're not now funny and as far as I can tell never have been. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It sounds specious to judge an entry's worth based on its humour value. --Rolloffle 07:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
23. Delete, delete, delete and delete again. They're way down the notability food chain. Merry Christmas. sjorford 21:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
24. Delete. Let's hope we can get rid of this for good this time. -- The Anome 22:18, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
25. Delete: agree with TUF-KAT. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
26. Not notable, trollcruft, delete. Kosebamse 22:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
27. Delete vanity troll. If you believe the article, they're mostly spammers, not trolls. As an experienced Usenet and IRC troll, I know the difference. Gazpacho 23:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Read the article on crapflooding - "As a technique, crapflooding is typically considered by other trolls to be a "lesser" form of trolling since less intellectual effort is involved in carrying it out." Crapflooding is trolling. --SPUI 23:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

28. Delete. Let it die, folks. hfool 23:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
29. Delete. Evercat 23:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
30. Delete, unencyclopedic. Organization is not notable and has not acheived anything significant. They really are not important in any meaningful way. Arminius 00:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
31. Delete. Not notable; maybe merging the more important points with a larger article on Internet trolling would be good, though -- with this page redirected there. It doesn't warrant its own page, however. --Sarcasticninja 17:44, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
32. Delete. Non notable. -- taviso 22:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
33. Delete. Ambi 01:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
34. Delete. Finally, someone let six months pass since the last VfD. Now I can vote to delete. Subject is non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 02:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't look closely enough. The dates were not in order. Oh, well. It's high time, anyway. SWAdair | Talk 07:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
35. Delete. Their "notable activities" just look childish and frivolous to me. Delete as a vanity page. PS: Although it has to be said I'm not keen on articles being constantly sent back to VfD, if the previous votes weren't trolled I would have had to vote keep on principle. Rje 03:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
36. Delete: People without names are celebrating their ability to be churlish. There is nothing verifiable here. It's as simple as that. Let their bards sing songs and their women dance with bare navels and freshly shaven beards, but let this not be confused with material that belongs in an encyclopedia, which requires verifiability. Geogre 05:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What portion of the article doesn't meet your standard of verifiability? The article is very well-documented with verifiable sources. ElBenevolente 00:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
37. Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg 05:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
38. Delete as original research and/or vanity article. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No longer any original research on article; significant comments have been referenced with links. --Rolloffle 08:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And when it's deleted, redirect to Slashdot Trolling Phenomena and protect the redirect. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
39. Delete Non-Notable. Before I joined WP I had neevr heard of them, and I'm very active on Slashdot, which spawned them. Sponge! 06:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
40. Delete. Same reasons as last time. john k 06:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
41. Delete. Same reasons. ugen64 06:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
42. Delete. Never heard of them outside Wikipedia, and I've read Slashdot at -1 since 1999. There's a lot of well-known trolls, but these aren't among them---they're only famous on Wikipedia. --Delirium 07:31, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
43. Delete. Clearly vanity. Martg76 07:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
44. Delete. Let's not set a precedent that disrupting Wikipedia (or Slashdot, for that matter) constitutes notability, or every egomaniac will set about doing exactly that. No strong feelings on a redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena, provided the redirect is protected. RadicalSubversiv E 10:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
45. Delete; Non-notable, vanity. —tregoweth 16:16, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
46. Strong delete. This borderline vanity article is taking up way too much time and effort. Vacuum c 16:57, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
47. Delete, not notable. --fvw* 18:05, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
48. Delete with extreme prejudice.Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
49. Delete. A couple of brats occasionally make prank posts? Either it's not notable or I want an article on the prank phone calls I made when I was a kid. --LeeHunter 23:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Did you actually read the article? Those guys are coordinated, they brought down 4chan, they forced a slashdot founder to kill off comments on his blog, they've caused major disruption to many sites. They even have their own script AND an IRC server they coordinate operations from. So how are they "just a couple of brats" that don't cause major disruption? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

50. Delete Should be merged into Slashdot trolling phenomena or Internet troll. an extreme example, but still only an example. - Amgine 00:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
51. Delete I agree with the merge, because they are significant, but for the most part an organization full of people with nothing better to do than annoy people and make their lives harder does not deserve a whole article on Wikipedia. --Joshk 04:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
52. Delete Non-Notable. Vaoverland 01:49, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
53. Delete Moncrief 01:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
54. Delete After reading the article and reviewing their website. [[User:Hydnjo| Hydnjo\^talk]] 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
55. Delete Vanity. Puerile. PRiis 03:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
56. Delete non notable group outside a few blogs, and even in those blogs most people have never read anything by them. Just a self publicity article. kaal 03:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
57. Delete In lengthy travels around Slashdot, I've encountered "goatse" and various other little phenomena that get and arguably deserve articles here. I've never seen any mention of "GNAA". I'm willing to believe from the comments here that "GNAA" really exists and is slightly more skillful, inventive or persistent than the average troll. OK, it's more desperate for attention than your average group of twits: still no need to award it a vanity page. -- Hoary 05:34, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

    A quick google shows that they get a couple of first posts every so often, though it's true I haven't seen them around lately. Perhaps GNAA has jumped the shark. [4] [5] [6] [7] They're marked by the largest ego-to-notability ratio I've ever seen, and that's about it. grendel|khan 06:01, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

58. Delete Non notable. Seem to have been written by one of the member

    User: unless you sign, your vote won't get counted. Incidently, I don't like being called a member of the GNAA. I'm not. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

59. redirect to Slashdot Trolling Phenomena. Also, there could be WP:GNAA, because I have to agree it has become a notable Wikipedia phenomenon. btw, it can still be made a redirect even if it survives VfD. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
60. Delete Profoss 18:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
61. Delete! This page is a idiotic, uninteresting, and offending self vanity page constantly suffering from members trying to make their group look oh-holy-and-almighty. For the love of god, delete, delete, DELETE! The group has even gone far enough as to say they've "conquered" Wikipedia on their homepage. Pathetic. We don't create articles for every other non-notable gay porn website, so why should this one be different? I'm sure there is plenty of other gay porn sites out there that need more attention than this lame one. Not saying we should have articles about gay porn, though. A search for GNAA on Slashdot hardly returns anything (about 15 things) and their "posts" are always boring, generally the same thing over and over again. No one really cares about their lame posts anymore, and the only reason they have an "article" here is because they want a vanity. The only reason this wasn't deleted before is because of the masses of sockpuppets. DELETE! —OvenFresh☺ 00:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Ironically, they had. For all of 5 seconds, by exploiting a name-creation bug in our software we were unable to block a vandal who impersonated as User:Grunt. This is all sorted out now. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • OvenFresh, you appear to be grossly misinformed re: the "official" GNAA website. Even a cursory glance at it would demonstrate that it contains no homosexual pornography. Perhaps it would be best to familiarise yourself with the subject matter before making a vote on whether or not it is notable. --Rolloffle 03:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
62. Delete. This type of self-aggrandising slashdot drivel only stands in the way of making wikipedia a real encyclopedia that intelligent people find useful. Those who feel this article should be kept have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of an encyclopedia. There are many gray areas where wikipedians can debate for hours without reaching any conclusion, but the fact that this article appears to fall into the aforementioned category is a sign of serious issues within the community that threaten to undermine the entire project. Schools, fancruft, academics, sports stars, and other categories of articles have received much debate, but there are good notability arguements in all of these areas. This group has zero notability, zero importance, and zero worth, and the sooner wikipedia is free of it the better. Indrian 06:12, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
63. Delete as usual. Troll vanity. jni 10:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
64. Delete. I was the one who put it on VfD for the third time, not knowing about the previous two times. Similarly, it appears that this nomination comes from someone else unaware of previous VfDs. The GNAA is not notable, and it's only their need to feel important that causes them to be so sensitive to the idea that they're just a group of vandals. Not notable means not encyclopedic. Additionally, much of the content is not verifiable, and there's vanity. The page has been, because of the vanity aspect of the article, a war zone whereby likely group members use it as a PR front, and edit war over any attempts to NPOV it. The page has been protected a number of times for that reason. Additionally, group members have been involved in things akin to voter fraud (threatening voters in various ways, extensive use of sockpuppets, and similar). --Improv 18:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Funny. I've been the most active editor of the page recently, and I'm an admin. It's had lots of material removed by one user under the guise of removing "non-notable" items, and when I question him on the talk page I get lots of "point" reasons why they are removed, and yet very little in the way of proper discussion. Not only that, but the user insists on calling me a "spammer". So still think it's the GNAA who's causing problems with NPOVing of that article? Personally, I think it's the editors who don't like the GNAA who are causing the most amount of problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

65. Delete Pointless homophobia/racism. --Azazello 19:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
66. Delete Useless link that serves no purpose on wikipedia--Plato 04:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
67. Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Remember Daniel C. Boyer? — マイケル ₪ 05:00, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

    Nope. Looking at the deleted edits, I can see a redirect to a user account, that's all. Care to enlighten us? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User:Daniel C. Boyer created the article Daniel C. Boyer, and several other articles about himself. It was fought about for several month, but finally decided that since the articles were originally created by him, they should not exist, even if another user wanted to recreate them. Now, if the claim that GNAA created the GNAA article is true, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for this article. See here, here, and here for some background information. Unfortunately, it looks like someone has done a thorough job of deleting the talk history of the article, so I can't show you the entire history. I think the bottom line is, you must ask yourself, if the GNAA hadn't intervened to create the article would it have been created? Probably not, therefore, it doesn't belong here. — マイケル ₪ 15:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

    I disagree. You'll find that most of the recent changes and maintenance done to the GNAA article are done by non-GNAA members. At the very least, it can be said that many non-GNAA members actively contribute to the GNAA article. It is irrelevent as to whether or not a GNAA member originally created the article because the fact that many different people are currently working on it affirms its validity and strongly suggests it should be kept. In any case, if Rob Malda originally created the slashdot article, I don't think you or anyone else would be clammering for its deletion. Of course that is because most wikipedians are very selective in applying their principles. GNAA Popeye 16:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    I see no evidence to support your view that "most wikipedians are very selective in applying their principles". At the moment a majority of Wikipedians are supporting keeping this article. Paul August ☎ 16:46, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

    I was wrong, thanks for pointing that out. It's refreshing to see a majority of votes on the GNAA's (and Wikipedia's, if you think about it) side. GNAA Popeye 17:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

68. Strong Delete Wiki should not succumb to trolls. --CiaraBeth 22:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
69. This should not just be deleted, but extremely deleted. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 23:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
70. Delete I see no reason for this garbage to be in any kind of encyclopedia. It only serves as an utterly lame attempt at Internet troll(ing) - Polarism 11:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
71. Delete - they only look notable because they play their tedious tricks on us. --rbrwr^± 13:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other Votes

• Invalid vfd., (otherwise counts as strong keep) (this is not a keep vote), this page has been nominated several times before, and result was to keep. Nominator was well aware of this fact, and so should be warned. Kim Bruning 14:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Factual corrections:
  1. Nominator was not "aware of this fact." I nominated this time--I'm on record as saying I would not have nominated if I had known it had been nominated several times before.
  2. The VfD was valid. There is at present no policy on the number of times an article can be listed for deletion. I think this is wrong, but in the absence of proper record keeping and an actual policy this is the case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At least we're having a discussion now, as opposed to a numbered vote. Good. That's how consensus is supposed to work. *phew* :-).

So going right along: I guess I was confused by "apparently this was already nominated in september". Ok, I'm sure you nominated in good faith. But now we *know* it's been unsuccesfully nominated several times. Hence invalid vfd. Kim Bruning 16:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kim, what makes you think it's an invalid VfD? --Improv 19:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it was a valid article in September, what's changed? Simply relisting things, hoping that a different set of voters will give what can spuriously be described as a "consensus" surely isn't within the spirit of this process? Tony could have tried convincing those who voted to keep it last time that it should be deleted. That would be an attempt to build a consensus. There were a quite large number of keep votes last time from editors in good standing. The only possible excuse I can see for relisting an article is that one has made an effort to create real consensus and can realistically expect a different outcome. Relisting it hoping to get a majority and a sympathetic admin is a subversion of what we are about here and should be censured in the strongest terms.Dr Zen 01:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, wake up. It wasn't a valid article in September, and it isn't now. It only survived because of a legion of sockpuppet trolls created during or after previous VfDs, voting through open proxies like this one--just like is happening now.

202.130.84.133 02:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you're a strict rules lawyer, I suppose you could say that there's no policy that says it's wrong. However, as we know, wikipedia is about consensus and reason, and policy is dictated by that consensus and by reason, rather than that reason and consensus are dictated by policy. That'd be putting the cart before the horse. :-P

So why do I think this vfd is invalid, atm.?

* Nominator withdrew nomination (though perhaps that's not enough on its own)

* It's quite unreasonable to nominate an article 5 times. (And wikipedia is about doing reasonable things first and foremost)

I'd like to avoid voting on this same topic yet again (with the same result :-P ). That's possible provided we get a consensus that this nomination was indeed invalid . VfD has a precedent page where this can be stated as something like :

"Is it ok to nominate an article twice or more? -No".

Kim Bruning 02:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kim, I appreciate that you've taken "Be Bold" to heart, but both here and on the RfAdmin, you do seem to be trying to take charge of things a bit too much, overstating your point of view as a mandate. Perhaps you're not actually thinking that way, but from the comments there, I know I'm not the only editor who gets that impression. --Improv 07:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. We all have our own unique impressions of each other. And if this VfD isn't invalid (and in my opinion, it is), then at the very least it is beyond absurdity. Lessons learned: Read the talk page next time (!!!) —RaD Man (talk) 08:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment: Quoting directly from Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." Dan100 10:16, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Awesome! So to get my vanity page back, I just have to be persistent? I had no idea this was acceptable behaviour!

Do that and you risk getting blocked. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The GNAA posts on Slashdot exist because that site never blocks, they simply assign a -1 in their -1 to 5 rating system. If Slashdot were to block trolls like Wikipedia does, GNAA would be a non entity. LostCluster 04:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One site's method of moderation giving rise to an organization surely is completely irrelevant in regards to possible deletion from Wikipedia. --69.76.3.27 19:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• LostCluster, that is just plain false. Wikipedia uses different kinds of blocks: IP blocks, subnet blocks, and blocks of individual users. Slashdot uses subnet blocks and user blocks; if you post just two or three comments that are moderated down to -1 in the space of a few days, your Class C is blocked semipermanently. Slashdot can and does block people semipermenantely. I can understand your lack of familiarity with the system, given your predilection for crowd pleasing, but please don't spread misinformation. --Rolloffle 00:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just don't re-create the same content.

• Comment: It appears this article clearly falls into the area of deletability: it has no independent verifiability whatsoever so immediately fails the encyclopedic test - David Gerard 23:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  I think you're exaggerating. Some things may not be sufficiently verifiable (and should therefore go), but surely you're not questioning the group's very existence or their most prominent actions. I think we can get independent verification of that, where the article does not already give it. (That it may not have explicit verification now is not enough grounds for deletion; the majority of our articles don't.) JRM 01:33, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

  Maybe, but I'd like to see ANYTHING in this article substantiated by ANYTHING other than the GNAA sites listed at the end. ANYTHING. Surely that's not too much to ask - David Gerard 03:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  That strikes me as a fair request. How about it, keep-voters? Mackensen (talk) 06:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  Sure. This involved going to the GNAA IRC server, but I've sourced just about all the claims. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC).

• Comment

1. May be it was not notable earlier. But coming for delete for 5 times make it quite notable :-)
2. But I won't even buy this argument. That it got notable after 'nomination' of deletion. If it is not notable why people are voting in such a high number???
3. May be just by coincidence? But this too is not valid. Because of very special voting instructions to avoid edit conflicts. So people who ‘nominated’ it for deletion, already knew it is notable!

Is there any thing wrong with my arguments? If not will be waiting for ‘counter comments’. Zain 02:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact that it's been up for deletion five times has no bearing on the notability of a certain topic. What is notable is the article itself - i.e. should we create an article The Wikipedia article about the GNAA? That's the issue here... ugen64 06:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So the article The Wikipedia article about the GNAA will be encyclopedic and noteable, but GNAA it self won't be encyclopedic. Sounds funny to me. Plus you didn't provide answers to high voting and special voting instructions.

Zain 12:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not accept your definition of notability, by your reckoning, there can be no such thing as non-notability, by examining a topic you give it notability. Presumably prior to examination it exists in a Schrodinger's cat-like sate, but immediately becomes notable upon examination. I do not accept this, there is no Falsifiability! Nothing people say, or any vote outcome can prove this Non-Notable!

Regarding the High Voting problem, I will explain why I decided to vote, maybe this will be of interest to you. I have a wikipedia account and have voted (Delete), but am posting this anonymously (No particular reason). I have never heard of GNAA before today, I am a regular slashdot reader and out of boredom decided to lower my threshold from 2 to 1, when I spotted this comment, out of curiosity, I clicked the link. Once I had read the available material, I was shocked that an obvious Vanity and clearly not notable page had survived for so long, so I voted.

Your third questions is easy to solve, the Higher than usual voting numbers make the normal hap-hazard voting vfd system very difficult to manage. 192.94.73.22 17:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment:I do not appreciate being listed under questionable votes just because I don't edit here often (I did time to time before I registered a couple months anonymously to fix vandalism, but I have been severely busy as of late). I am nobody's sockpuppet, and find the judgment to place me among that list questionable. I regularly use Wikipedia as a resource, and appreciate the efforts of those who do have the time to edit frequently, but this would be the second slap in my face on the part of Wikipedia admins as far as I'm concerned.Cwydian 02:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  Two remarks. First, that the vote is questionable doesn't mean your opinion is questionable. In fact, the very observation that you're here defending your status as Wikipedian should be enough for an admin to make your vote count. "Questionable" does not mean "ignore without further ado". Second, your vote could be moved by anyone, not just an admin. And let's face it: if you have two edits, then unfortunately, you are going to have to prove that your account is legit. This is an unfortunate but probably necessary breach of assuming good faith, on purely technical grounds. Rest assured that your vote will count in the end, or I'm severely misjudging our admins. JRM 02:53, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

  Thanks for addressing my concerns, JRM. I don't edit alot because most of the time, I'm either satisfied with the article or am uncertain as to what I can contribute, am unsatisfied by what I am trying to contribute, or simply just don't have the time (which is usually the case). I'm willing to answer questions or do whatever is needed to verify this accounts legitimacy if required, however. Cwydian 03:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Must the vote be sorted like this? It makes any debate very hard to follow. The regular format works most of the time, doesn't it? hfool 03:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there's a possibility that whichever admin makes the final decision on this can't count very well or might get confused? Anyway, every response to this VfD is pure troll food. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The GNAA entry, describing a phenomenon common to Slashdot, is no less "notable", than, say, the entries CmdrTaco or Slashdot trolling phenomena. Also, the entry now contains non-GNAA-affiliated references for all of its substantial claims and so cannot be considered "original research". Further, the entry is actually informative; someone seeing a reference to the GNAA on a bulletin board or by someone else can consult it to find out some background information. -- User:Rolloffle

• Comment: the page is fully referenced now. I can't see anything that could be called original research now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• A bunch of disorganised GNAA references to demonstrate notability substantiate claims in the article:

• Comment -> At this point I would think someone would realize the validity of the VfD process simply isn't there. Being on it's 5th VfD, the users have already made a point about the article, and since nothing significant has changed, many people may simply be voting just to get rid of the VfD again, to 'make it go away' because they are now annoyed with the process, or they dislike the group. Both of those are not valid reasons to delete, as far as I know.
  • Seconded.

Oh come on, read the comments people have made, they're voting Keep because it has survived VfD. I think everyone here is intelligent enough to see how they've managed to survive (at least prior to this VfD), I won't question the validity of that, but let's not pretend anything deeper is going on, they've found a loophole in the VfD process and are exploiting it, they're not being persecuted.

• I think the GNAA are being persecuted. Obviously, not by all, but definitely by some. For instance, witness Rdsmith4's remark (delete vote #13) above: "Delete as usual. Perhaps it would get rid of them.". Also, note The Anome's previously nominations to delete the article and heavyhanded replacement of it with a redirect – without giving any justification or explication. Suspicious behaviour for someone impartial, no? --Rolloffle 22:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm just curious as to the difference between a normal Delete vote and a "Strong delete" vote that some of the people here have used. --Rolloffle 22:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases. Basically, you use "strong" when you feel that deletion is supported by fundamental policy (i.e. "not deleting this would make Jimbo cry", or something equally dramatic). It is explicitly not a way to express your distaste for the article (or your appreciation when voting "strong keep"). JRM 09:01, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

---

I think it should be kept because: (Please don't take this seriously, I am providing mostly facts)

• Notable enough (Opinion)
  • IRC channel exists (Fact)
  • Over 20,000 Google results using search quiery "Gay Nigger Association of America" (Fact)
  • Is reported by Slashdot ./ (Fact)
• Am voting Keep because I have last time, repetitive VFD only makes me trust my instincts even more. (Opinion)
  • Repetitively VFDing this article only makes matters worse and go out of hand. This is the 4th or 5th time (According to some individuals) that this has gone under VFD. (Opinion)
• Article is established and work have been added to it. (Fact)
  • If you are deleting the article, you are also deleting [8]. Which is almost 600 edits. (Fact)
• There are heaps of non-notable things on Wikipedia (e.g. List of <insert obsecure>) etc. (? - Not sure)
  • If this article is VFDed, what about Internet Troll and every article in the Troll category.
• It provides an in-depth article to complement the trolls category and the Troll article. See Category:Internet trolls. From: Squash 00:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that numbered voting on vfd was smacked down as a Really Bad Idea (tm). (see vfd talk archives). I don't like the fact that it's showing up again now. I removed the requirement text from the top of the page, but haven't actually gone and edited anything in the sections, mainly because I'm lazy and the damage is done anyway. Kim Bruning 14:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: If the GNAA were truly article-worthy, they wouldn't have to get their membership out to vote on VfD. CmdrTaco doesn't come here and write an article about himself. Internet Trolls don't come here and write articles about themselves. I'm still convinced that this is the gold standard for notability: without any prodding or induction, someone decides to go out and write a real article about you. They're a bunch of trolls and whiners, and they think this makes them notable. They're notable only for making a nuisance of themselves, both on Slashdot and on here. (No, this isn't a vote. I'm abstaining from this circus, just wanted to put my two cents in.) grendel|khan 03:52, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

[edit] Votes with questionable provenance

Please insert votes from suspected trolls, sockpuppets or new users here for peer review

Am I the only one who finds this new practice of listing all the votes you don't agree with as 'suspected trolls, sockpuppets or new users', implying that these votes are somehow less valid? What is the process for putting them back on the main list? Can I list users who I suspect of being trolls here too? Mark Richards 01:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I too find this a disturbing trend. I understand the desire to sort out very long and controversial discussion threads but I believe that this kind of sorting and disruption of the discussion ultimately makes it harder to sort out, not easier. It's too late to fix this one, but we should avoid this format in the future. Rossami (talk) 07:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Keep Votes

1. Keep, the GNAA is no less notable than Slashdot, of which they are an integral (if desirable) part. They're no less a vanity page than an entry about the Hell's Angels or the Mafia. I'd also like to add that this has passed through VfD unscathed four times before. This suggests that there isn't going to be a proper consensus to delete it. --Rolloffle 20:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   User's second edit. Xezbeth 20:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

   And also a self-confessed member of the GNAA on the IRC Channel --BesigedB 20:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   • This does not make him a sock puppet! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • BeSigedB: I don't think that's particularly relevant. Denying me a vote because I claimed to be a GNAA member in an IRC channel is just as invalid as, say, denying Slashdotters from voting on a Slashdot-related VfD. (Which this is, now that I think about it.) --Rolloffle 22:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Both genuine edits, I'd like to point out. --Rolloffle 20:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   • Ack, s/desirable/undesirable/ --Rolloffle 22:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. Keep. Their online existence is notable enough. ThunderWarrior 19:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   User's first edit. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. Keep. Do not let the delete voters get their way. Mookore 2005 22:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Keep it, you guys are stupid. If you delete their entry it will cause them to focus whatever energy to get it back out of the spirit for fun. Furthermore, if GNAA having an entry bothers you I suggest getting a life.

   Methinks there's a distinct scent of GNAAers in the air. Wyss 22:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Oh, a racist comment! Philip Nilsson 17:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   I'm not a member of GNAA and have never trolled in my life.. however, I find some of their actions and the history behind them interesting and defiently notable. This whole voting system is off in the sense that you only consider people valid if they agree with your point and fit into the demograph of people who will agree with your point. It only takes a quick glance at GNAA history to see exactly what will happen to Wikipedia as a whole if this vote passes. To consider me a member of GNAA just because I believe censorship is wrong is a sign of total ignorance.

   And anti-GNAAers as well.

5. Keep, They deserve to stay. -- Andrevam 01:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   User has one edit, and additionally tried to impersonate Andrevan.

6. Keep. Wikipedia is about covering as many topics as we possibly can. There are many topics of similar (un)importance to the world. I'm not an editor, but not GNAA-member. They're primitive assholes, but they exist, hence their presence in the Wikipedia is obligatory once someone decided to write about them. --Lam 11:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Keep. They keep underprivileged children like one 'Dikky' Hearties off the street, and gives me something to chuckle at when I'm feeling blue. --Jackson Q Brown III Dec 26, 2004

   I don't see why I got bumped just because I don't write/edit. I am a user, I should get a say!

8. Keep People have a right to be informed! -PollTroll

   Comment not actually signed with a username. --Delirium 07:33, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

9. Keep. Surviving 4 votes for deletion is a pretty impressive accomplishment. The Gay Nigger Association of America is an insperation to myself and internet trolls everywhere. Just because this group is not important in your life does not mean it isn't important. An example of another entry which is significant for some but irrelevent to others is homestar runner. Put me in the n00b section if you must but most of the "delete" votes seem to be coming from cranky people who take themselves waaay to seriously. Who else would vote for deletion on Christmas? --bit trollent 02:18, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

   User's first edit. Kosebamse 08:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   To clear up any misunderstandings, I have been a fan of this group since before this Wikipedia vote for deletion game existed. Their ability to survive votes for deletion is a demonstration of their prominance, but their true strength lies in their messege board trolling activites, particularly on Slashdot. Also this my be my first edit but I'm mostly here to say that the accusation that the GNAA is only notable among its own members is simply false. As a successfull trolling organization, its impact is felt by many, some of whome are inspired to become trolls themselves. --bit trollent 03:55, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

   In the case of homestar runner they were recently featured on MediaTelevision as a successful venture in new media with a growing cult following. This makes it notable even if most people are indifferent. Also, I just discovered they have their own Wiki, that's gotta count for something. --RoyBoy 06:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

10. Keep Keep, theres a bit of gnaa in all of us. 03:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Posted by User:66.186.89.84. Rhobite 04:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

11. Keep, assholes... but notable assholes. CranialNerves 21:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has very few edits (<50, all of them today). Neutrality^talk 21:25, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

    Well a few of them weren't, but still a 'very new user' I suppose. Xezbeth 21:27, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

    User's account predates VfD by several days. Sam Hocevar 01:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

12. Keep, of course. While we're on the subject of "non-notable individuals/organizations", might as well delete all the "self-aggrandizing" user pages. --Timecop 20:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has very few edits, most from the last VfD of this page. Also a GNAA member, so expect the rest of them to show up soon. Xezbeth 20:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

    User account is 3 months old. Hardly a new user. Sam Hocevar 01:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Dubious nevertheless. Kosebamse 11:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Yeah, introduced when the previous VfD statred. The only non GNAA edit since then was putting a trollish VfD note on a good page Witchaven. Perfectly falls under the non-"good faith" criterion. Mikkalai 04:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

13. keep. It's a joke. It hurts no one. Leave it alone. --Osbojos 01:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User has six edits.

    User account is 3 months old. Hardly a new user. Sam Hocevar 01:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Dubious nevertheless. Kosebamse 11:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    User now has twelve edits and has even created at least one article. Sam Hocevar 10:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

14. Keep, and turn the hatiez into heartiez. -- GaryNigel 23:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
15. keep. the GNAA page is factual and unbiased, and deleting it won't help anything. -- tehlec 05:33:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Votes

1. Delete, This entry is a waste of space. Cwydian 23:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   User:Cwydian has 2 edits.

2. Delete Let's just let it die already. --Angafirith 22:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   I moved this to the 'very new user' area. I have made a few edits in the past (before I made an account), but I am still new to Wikipedia. --Angafirith 23:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   User:Angafirith has 2 edits. [9]

3. Delete. I am the guy who keeps redirecting the article back to Slashdot Trolling Phenomena, and I say let's get rid of this nonsense once and for all! 82.39.115.87 01:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Anonymous votes are not counted on VfDs. ugen64 06:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Anon votes are counted on VFD unless there there is "strong evidence of bad faith". For the relevant policy see: Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Paul August ☎ 21:02, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

   Yeah. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. Mikkalai 01:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   For the record, this user has been blocked at least three times for vandalising the GNAA article. Sam Hocevar 10:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4. Delete and make an Arbcom case against Users who support and promote a troll organization's entry as an encyclopedic reference. -Silly bogus user name 05:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   First post by this guy. Mod parent down. --SPUI 05:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   "Mod parent down"? And you say he's new? grendel|khan 05:54, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

   Woah, if you did not get that pun, I question your legitimacy to argue the notability of a Slashdot-related subject :-) Sam Hocevar 12:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5. Delete They don't deserve to live let alone have an article GNAA Sucks 01:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   This is the user's first edit. --fvw* 01:12, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

6. Delete Vanity page; suggest redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena or similar. Note that even if the VfD is successful they will almost certainly attempt a further action against Wikipedia.

   Anon 211.27.37.163 vote stricken out. Mikkalai 01:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

7. Delete GNAA is a bunch of faggots. True story. autopr0n 08:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Anon 129.44.247.73, whose only other edit was to vandalize this VfD.

8. Delete!. Don't feed the trolls. This is an exception case to the rule that says recreated articles indicate interest. In this case, all the recreation indicates is that the trolls are trying to outlast us. LostCluster 04:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
   • This user has 19 edits, 2 of them made to this VfD. [10] --Rolloffle 07:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

     Edits are all genuine, and account predates VfD (if only just). I trust this vote. JRM 08:24, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed solution

• wikipedia officialy declares they have been trolled and they have lost
• GNAA stops trolling wikipedia in any way
• GNAA receives a gnaa.wikipedia.org node to do whatever they want with (separate accounts, etc). alternatively, GNAA could be put in charge of the "Troll"-related material on wikipedia
• everyone is happy --Timecop 18:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It almost worked, but you should have put in that Jimbo officially apologized to the GNAA for allowing such rampant abuse of the VfD process. He would become an honorary GNAA member in return. JRM 23:49, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Jimbo did what?! Where?! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. That should be "apologizes", of course. JRM 13:58, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

• What the hell is this? does this section need to be here?

Obviously, a poorly worked-out troll. In response to your question, I would say "no", as it does not pertain to the deletion of the article. Generally, however, statements on VfD pages are kept even if they're as utterly unproductive as this one. JRM 02:26, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)