Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination)

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 PENDING. This won't be an easy close, so I'm going to spend some time reading and marking any comments I disregarded. I'm just tagging this for now so it doesn't change while I'm deciding. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. This entire page hinges on one source, and it has been established to my satisfaction that that one source isn't describing a settlement, but instead an arbitrary point. Should someone discover a reliable source independent of Fallingrain that establishes that this is a settlement instead of an arbitrary location, this article could be recreated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gnaa, Nigeria

Article has no evidence of the subject's existence, neither does any Google search Shadow1 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete This article was created by a troll account. It has no references outside of GNAA press statements, a dubious geography website backed by "Falling Rain Genomics" (note the similarity to the GNAA press release regarding creating people from spare nig___ parts) and another website which says that you can't trust it. This is crap and ridiculous that it has survived two already. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If llywrch says it is trustworthy I'll go with that, but they likely didn't go to those coordinates and ask the locals what they call the place. Hyperbole? Yes, but my point is that they would have had to get it from some other reliable source. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Strong keep'neutral for now Article asserts existence and Google confirms - see e.g. the link in the article itself. Dlyons493 Talk 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Umm, see the objections raised about that link. Please explain why that link and another sketchy site that probably copied the info are the only places in the entirety of cyberspace that mention this place outside of GNAA press releases. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Hadn't realised there's a history to this one! I've used the site in the article before and found it OK, also did a fairly cursory Google and found it on [1]. Will research a bit more before deciding. Can someone add links to previous two AfD's please.
Weak keep The tutiempo site doesn't count as independent confirmation - it just mirrors fallingrain in some way as far as I can see. Still NGA does have it also so, while that's not infallible, the balance of probablility is that the place does exist (in some fashion). Dlyons493 Talk
  • Strong delete per WAvegetarian Jibbles | Talk 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Cheerfully speedy delete Weary, very weak keep with a strong desire to revisit in 2 months -- and then drive a stake through its heart. If you look at the last AfD, nobody fought harder to get this non-notable hoax deleted. I'm just not comfortable re-AfD'ing right away. Somehow it seems like maybe it's against the rules. Talk me out of this notion and I'll be at the head of the "speedy delete" line. In the meantime, feel free to look at all the links I produced on the last AfD. See the links I've added later in this RfA. Whatever the concerns about fallingrain.com, the NGA link convinced me that there really is a clearing or rock in Nigeria with that name. But then again, see what else I dug up about NGA names -- they list every possible name there's ever been including mountains, 829 undersea features and 8 different "places" in the Vatican. I may be in Makurdi in 2-3 weeks; I wish I had time to drive by those coordinates and take a picture of the squash field or whatever's there -- it won't be a town! Oh, and this time around ,let's invite some of Wikipedia's Nigerian editors to look at this.--A. B. 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I left a non-committal (hopefully NPOV) notices on the Africa-related regional notice board and several Nigerians' talk pages advising them of the AfD
  • Weak delete - as far as I can see the original was a redirect to the GNAA page, Freakofnurture (who doesn't appear to be a troll unless we are voting them in as admins) created the Nigeria stub later, but... since the only mainspace link to it is from the GNAA page, it has no references so fails WP:OR, and is a non-notable stub, I say even if it's true, it's not necessary. Yomangani 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it can't be verified in a reliable source (and so far, it can't), we're better off without it. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nunh-huh's rationale. If the info could truly be verified, it would be a different story. But since there's no proof this place exists, we should just get rid of its article.
  • Delete. The map source shows that such a place exists, but not all places are notable. Those maps show even villages that are notable only to the three people who live in them. --Ezeu 01:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WAvegetarian --gozar 01:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm out on a limb, I realize it. But this website also lists it as a place plus lists nearby cities. It can't be that underpopulated. It also appears on this website. So we have a city that is verifiable; I can't see tossing that without proof of non-notability. I don't think broadband Internet access is that common in that part of the world so I wouldn't use Google hits to show non-notability. Ifnord 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment:
  • Delete. A. B. has dug deep on this one, and I can not argue with his knowledge of the area. If he says it's not there then I defer to him. Ifnord 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks -- I'm flattered. I actually knew nothing before seeing the name come up in the list of AfDs (the 2nd AfD) a few days ago. I had just received this Nigerian map (for a business trip) the same day and was intrigued to see if I could find it on the map. What I've written on this page represents the sum total of what I know about this area. --A. B. 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is obviously a real place. It can be clearly seen using Google Earth at the co-ordinates indicated in the article, which matches EXACTLY the location listed at Falling Rain Genomics webpage, additionally it can be searched and appears on Mapquest [[2]] and (strangely enough) appears at the prescribed co-ordinates. It also appears at indexmundi.com [[3]] How many times does there need to be a discussion? Do we just keep voting until those who want this article deleted get the result they want? The continuing nomination for deletion is almost disruptive. Looking for this city on Google Earth and Mapquest is not exactly time-intensive, nor difficult - the nominators and supporters of deletion of this article should have at least taken the time to verify whether or not this is a real place using these common tools before nominating this article yet again.--Nicodemus75 02:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment:
Comment/Response I realize that this has been up twice before and only very recently reached no consensus. I was not aware of the article until just recently. And no, I wasn't brought in by someone wishing for it to be deleted. I hate that sometimes the most aggressive side in an argument wins based on tenacity rather than true consensus. I hate seeing AfD abused this way as much as I hate seeing wheel warring. That said, the first AfD resulted in keep because there were places online that mentioned it. The validity of those sources wasn't really brought into question. I read a bunch of stuff on teh interwebs, but I'm not sure where they got their data from. In the second AfD, only one keep was added after the verifiability of the online sources was questioned. The validity was questioned at the end of the discussion. This second discussion seems to have been focussed on a content dispute over whether the GNAA should be mentioned in the article and whether the town was notable apart from that. Obviously a real town in Nigeria is just as notable as the gazillions of U.S. census data articles. This resulted in no consensus. Given that something new was raised at the end and didn't seem to have been addressed, I thought that it was worth talking about. I looked at Google Earth well before this nomination occurred and saw that indeed that area of Nigeria is used for agriculture. There are fields and forest there, but I don't see anything that would have a population of 6000+. Given how close by all the "towns" listed on the nona site are, the population density would have to be pretty high to get that many people before crossing the municipality boundary. Index Mundi != Google Earth. It is a data overlay over satellite images. If you had actually searched using Google Earth, as you incivilly implied I hadn't, you would find that it points to the Free Software Foundation in Boston. You can use Google Maps to search for Gnaa, Nigeria and return the same result. I don't feel this is disruptive any more than deletion review is. I have no intention of nomming this again. The only thing that seems obvious to me about this whole episode is that the GNAA is having fun with it, people are upset that we might be furthering systemic bias, and we really don't seem to have a good way of determining what's actually out there other than personal interpretation of low resolution satellite images from Google. My last comment goes back to Nicodemus75's assumptions. Neither the nominator nor I, the first commenter, were involved in either of the first two AfDs. Please don't imply that we are repeatedly abusing process to get our way. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment'. This article has twice been nominated for deletion, this nomination (3rd) was ONE DAY following the previous attempt which was 5 delete votes versus 9 keep votes which is BARELY a lack of consensus (some admins consider such a discussion result to be a consensus to keep). Your protestations and defenses notwithstanding, please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates where it clearly states: A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion (if kept) or re-created (if deleted). With respect to the verifiability of this place, please see WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. There are PLENTY of online sources including respected atlases that list this town as a real place. It is not our job to get at the truth of whether or not Mapquest or other online atlases have it right, as clearly stated: "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. Attempts to deconstruct these online atlases are beyond the scope of purpose here. This location is verifiable under the terms of the policy established at WP:V. The IMMEDIATE renomination of this article to AfD after a previous attempt to delete it had failed is a violation of policy. While I am certainly prepared to AGF, I find it a little hard to believe that Shadow1 had absolutely no idea that this article had been closed and failed to be deleted THE PREVIOUS DAY to his nomination. --Nicodemus75 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment It's likely that all these sites are working from a common source - which might be wrong. Still, as I said above the balance of probablility is that the place does exist. Certainly, one shouldn't delete because of a possible database error. There is also the notability question - but wiki has a strong tradition that settlements are intriniscally notable and NGA lists it as a populated place. Again NGA might be wrong but one shouldn't delete because of a possible database error. Dlyons493 Talk 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It's not "obviously a real place". It's a place for the existence of which we have no non-Internet evidence. What's needed is a real reference, something printed on a dead tree, in a nice binding, not a website. And a citation for the population of > 6000 (the actual reason it would be notable) is also quite starkly missing. - Nunh-huh 04:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm sorry that people are offended by the GNAA's misuse of this placename, but Fallingrain's mention is a sufficiently reliable source for me; I've often used Falling Rain Genomic's webpage to research & confirm information about Ethiopian villages & cities, & I believe that we can trust it as a reliable source. If we are to start deleting placenames in Africa because they are "non-notable", shall we also be fair & start deleting placenames in the US & Europe for the same reason? If you haven't figured it out, the trolls want us to delete this article for their amusement. (Note: in writing that last sentence, I am not calling anyone who argues for a delete here a troll, just saying that they are mistaken about this placename's misuse.) -- llywrch 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nicodemus75. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If llywrch says that Fallinggrain is a reliable site, then it's good. Precedent on Wikipedia clearly indicates that inhabited localities get an article. If a town with 6559 inhabitants (according to the external link) isn't notable, then Rambot needs to remove thousands of locations in the US. - 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. "GNAA DOMINATES TROLLYMPICS" ... dateline: "Gnaa, Nigeria".
  2. Google shows no Nigerian' web pages containing the word "gnaa".
  3. Put the coordinates into Google Earth and you end up in the middle of nowhere. Contrary to another editor's comment -- nothing, just fields and forests. No road, no 6500 people.
  4. Put the coordinates on my trusty Nigerian road map and there's not even a dirt road shown. If 6,500 people live there, how does the Guiness truck get in? The map's index lists 1500 towns; Gnaa's not one of them.
  5. Article's creator was Dementedd, see his Article talk page and edit history -- this is not the only GNAA he edits.
  6. The article's first version was a redirect to the Gay Nigger Association of America
  7. Online map of the towns and roads around Awe and Kaor (Kaor is 2 km from the reported location of Gnaa). No Gnaa nowhere.
  8. Comment made by Spacepotato in the last AfD: "The population figure of 6,559 for Gnaa that this article used to have was taken from fallingrain, but this is probably bogus as fallingrain lists the same population figure for Kaor, Nigeria. Gnaa is either an error in the NGA database (which also contains the apparently nonexistent populated place Polfbroekstraat), or a place too small to show up on multimap."
  9. NGA's database contains all features, not just towns; check out the list of place files by country:
  • 8,229 places that are undersea features
  • NGA has 43,342 such "places" in Nigeria, a Texas-sized country -- Do we want 43,342 place articles just for Nigeria? 43,342 articles for Texas? (no Texas jokes, please) note: URL links to NGA's 1.2 Mb zip file
  • 31 places fall within just 10 km (6 miles) of Gnaa's reported location.
  • 8 different places within Vatican City
--A. B. 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
(Responding to A.B.'s research)
  1. A shocking number of African towns (or large villages, if you will) lack road connections. Or what we outside Africa would call a road.
  2. Maps of African countries are often incorrect. (As an example, one I am using at the moment not only omits a number of villages or towns that the Central Statistical Agency (Ethiopia) mentions, but amazingly divides the Omo River into 2 different rivers.)
  3. Having worked with the NGA database for Ethiopia, I'll freely concede that it has some interesting problems. However, no one has looked in the Nigeria database to determine what the story might be. The NGA records not only list placenames & their longitude & latitudes, but also flag it with such information as the type of place it is (e.g. habitation, locality, building, waterhole) & if it is known by another name. "Gnaa" may simply be an explorer's error for some other placename. (Note: My excuse for not performing this investigation myself because I've been spending the weekend doing some house remodelling in 100-degree heat.)
  4. While an alleged troll created the article, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn.
I have no horse in this race; with the right kind of arguments, I would be quite willing to change my vote above. My goal is to put only reliable information in Wikipedia. However, in all three deletion nominations, the same arguments & evidence have been repeated. If you want me to persuade me to change my vote, I need to see the following kinds of proof:
  • Has anyone checked the Nigerian government records? Almost every country has a website: even poverty-stricken Ethiopia has an abstract of its statistical information online. I would imagine that the Nigerian census agency has a website, & the necessary information to provide a decisive answer might lie there.
  • Has anyone taken the time to research this matter in a reference library? One of those with lots of printed things called books & periodicals? Excuse my tone, but this reliance on the Internet for facts about Africa is about as useful as relying on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for facts about astronomy or physics. My local city library even has a reference line, so you could call & get your answer without even leaving home. (And note: travellers have written books in English about Nigeria for over a century, some of which have been published in Nigeria. I'm curious to know whether any such works that should mention Gnaa do so.)
  • And let me repeat, how about a closer look at the NGA entry. For all we know, the answer may lie in that source. -- llywrch 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Populated Place Classification. A graduated numerical scale denoting the relative importance of a populated place. The scale ranges from 1, relatively high, to 5, relatively low. The scale could also include NULL (no value) as a value for populated places with unknown or undetermined classification."
Be sure to take a look, too, at the more detailed data analysis on the [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination)|AfD's talk page]. --A. B. 05:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per A.B's stunning detective work. This seems to be unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 06:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of verifiability. --Rob 06:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why are we going around in circles here? While I respect the research that A.B. has done here, it is far too original researchy for my taste. Fallingrain is a reliable source, and unless they personally come forward and say this information is false, I see no reason why this should be deleted. If we axe this, we may as well begin killing off the thousands of RamBot generated articles. A slippery slope we should not go down. P.S.: Has anyone tried contacting Fallingrain regarding this issue? Silensor 07:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The material I provided is not original research, it's encyclopedic. Not every Wikipedian is busy with AfDs, RfAs, ANIs and such; Wikipedia has actually been secretly built by hundreds of other editors beavering away looking this stuff up. Or that's what I thought. Just click on the links I conveniently provided -- go for it, it won't hurt. With one exception, it's all available online and available to any Wikipedian. (Google Earth imagery requires a free software download). The NGA file for each country is downloadable at the link above. The road map is an exception but widely available; (see the talk page for details). If I go to those coordinates next month as threatened -- now that's original research. (But wait -- isn't contacting fallingrain.com as suggested original research also?).--A. B. 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, while my comments above were in response to Silensor's good faith, reasonable concern, I really meant my sarcasm to be about the whole recurring Gnaa muddle -- the way GNAA has effortlessly managed to get us Wikipedians diligently tying ourselves in a knot with our own processes. My sarcasm was not meant to be about Silensor, but on re-reading, it looks like a dig at Silensor himself. I did not mean it that way. My aplogies. --A. B. 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. No reputable source. -- GWO
  • Delete. Per A.B. Wizzy…☎ 08:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, unverifiable hoax. I was fooled during the first AfD, I'm not going to be fooled this time. Also, A. B.'s excellent research is definitely convincing. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I can't see keeping data because of an inaccuracy in a source. One of my old computers had a world map program that came with it. It was very complete as far as locations it could pinpoint, but it also included a latitude and longitude for "Middle of Nowhere" in the Pacific Ocean. Does this mean I can now create an article on the inherently notable city of Middle of Nowhere, Pacific Ocean? GassyGuy 11:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: -- having fun yet? This is the third AfD. Think about it; if you were the other GNAA, wouldn't you enjoy seeing all us nerdy Wikipedians tying ourselves up fretting about all this? It's become a game. So lighten up -- we'll see this come around a few more times (in alternate guises should this third AfD pass). Like vandalism, it's just one another chronic, non-lethal pestulance afflicting Wikipedia. Like our response to vandalism, maybe we need a template; just encapsulate all the WP:NN links above into a new Gnaa template -- {{NoGnaaNowhere}} -- to save time the next time. In the meantime, let's delete this one. Cheers, --A. B. 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Gay Nigger Association of America, obviously. — Jul. 22, '06 [14:41] <freak|talk>
  • Delete. No reputable sources. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Verifiability. Maybe they'll get bored one day... - Mark 15:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable source.--Aldux 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is a bit disconcerting that we are so quick to discredit the reputation of this source (fallingrain) entirely. Can someone please explain why GlobeXplorer also provides photographs of one "Gnaa, NG" located at Latitude 8.3, Longitude 9.066599, with poster-size satellite imagery of the location available, dating back to January 1, 1999, half a decade before the Gay Nigger Association of America even existed? Quite a conspiracy we've got going here. Silensor 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that it's appropriate to look skeptically at a website that doesn't cite its sources. I don't see that fallingrain has cited its source for the existence of Gnaa. I think it's a bit disconcerting that no one can come up with a non-Internet reference for this supposedly-not-virtual place, or a citation documenting its purported population. - Nunh-huh 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I would love to explain it for you. If you look at that site, you will see that they use Mapquest to generate "matching addresses." Mapquest is not always accurate. Neither is Google Maps which labels a house two blocks away with my address. As for the date, that is the satellite image date. It is not a picture of that town; it is a picture of the region that town is supposedly in. The poster-size imagery is of the region. You will note, if you use Google Earth, that the image is at very low zoom. You could also compare visible roads to the nona map and see that there are around a dozen "towns" supposedly in the original image that comes up. So that's the explanation. It is, just like image mundi, just a data overlay of someone else's location on someone else's image.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment why can't GNAA be listed for deletion? It's only notable because it's on SlashDot and WikiPedia, and Slashdotters and GNAA members vote to keep it. 132.205.95.44 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    18 AfDs to date -- that's pretty amazing.--A. B. 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Also, don't try listing it for deletion - most of those AfDs were speedy keeps resulting from people being too impatient to wait before relisting it on AfD. The rest were because members of the GNAA flooded the AfDs with keep votes. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per A.B., and as for fallingrain, it's easily misinterpreted as noted above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have posted excerpts from this discussion on the article's talk page for future reference should this AfD fail, primarily regarding the specific references we used and their links. Although the full AfD discussion is archived, I've seen from these AfDs that, in reality, many people don't go back and wade through older discussions.--A. B. 23:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I want to note that the only "failing" possible would be failing to reach consensus. AfDs resulting in anything else have achieved consensus which is never a failure as that is what our project is based on.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Hoax. —this is messedrocker (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the external link that I didn't note earlier is enough evidence I need. Keep, but get rid of the insignificant reference to the GNAA. —this is messedrocker (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per User:A. B.'s evidence.Geni 15:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and please help reverse systemic bias this is a real place in nigeria Yuckfoo 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteDeananoby2 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of how an internet organisation uses the name, the town in Nigeria is still inherently notable. The internet usage is simply an afterthought and trvia within the context of the article about the town. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, I think there's pretty clear agreement that a town in Nigeria with a population of 6000 would be notable, if it existed, and that the troll club's use of the name is irrelevant to any article that might be written about that town. But the fact is that we cannot verify that the town does, indeed, exist. Since we can't verify it, the article ought to be deleted. If someone eventually finds some solid verification, another article could be written with actual, valid, facts. - Nunh-huh 22:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I figure this solidifies the notion that it does exist. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been established that that site isn't a reliable source. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on how it was discounted as an unreliable source by a legitimate entity? hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
All sources contain errors. The fewer the number of sources something can be found in, the more likely it represents an error. A town of 6000 persons ought to be findable in more than one source. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any reasons to think that the Falling Rain Genomics site is in error? The GlobeXplorer site backs up the information given by the Falling Rain site. Speaking in generalities doesn't add much to the discussion (All sources contain errors). Also, it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to understand that a small Nigerian town hasn't been heavily documented of yet. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
As detailed above, the two sites are not independent. And, yes, you are right, the town's existence hasn't been documented yet. - Nunh-huh 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The notion that it's reasonable to understand why the town hasn't been heavily documented is what I was right about, not that it hasn't been documented. You're a bit off in interpreting my previous statement. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Fallingrain.com is being misinterpreted; see the talk page: "With just 43 people in Gnaa, who gets to be mayor?" for the calculations.--A. B. 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Questionable accuracy. If it passes AfD, I'll strip mention of GNAA (the group) from the article anyway. --Improv 20:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • strong speedy delete enough said MikeMorley 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just added some data to the talk page regarding NGA's place names and fallingrain.com's data that may shed some light on the question of how to use this stuff:

--A. B. 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Once again, excellent job on the research. It definitely seems to clear things up and show that Fallingrain.com is indeed not a reliable source. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How does that show how Fallingrain.com isn't a reliable source? The issue A.B. is bringing up is that Fallingrain.com is not specifically labeling Gnaa a town, but perhaps a region, territory, or other "place".
  • Weak keep per Hoopydink. 1ne 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: informal tally to date for the closing admin: 23 editors recommend deleting (70%), 9 keeping (27%), 1 merging (3%). There's been so much back and forth my count may be off by one or two. It will certainly change some more.--A. B. 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Box? Where is this "box" you speak of? - Nunh-huh 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Nicodemus is right about the etiquette when I read it. Technically, my comment isn't in a box but it sure is a tally, so I struck it through. I think a reason for the rule is that unlike RfAs, this is not a vote -- we're just giving recommendations to the one admin who will actually make the real decision. Also, I'm not sure "etiquette" is binding but, heck, if we start ignoring etiquette, Miss Manners will tell you we're on a steep slippery slope from "please" and "thank you" to mobs with pitchforks ... --A. B. 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. delete western supremacists. JayW 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

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.