Bedat & Co ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article is about the Bedat & Co company which I feel that I've added sufficient source. However, its been deleted due to "unambiguous advertising". I've discussed this over with User:NawlinWiki and he suggested that I post this article up for review. I don't think that this article is advertising. User:BabyJinxi3 is a draft I've written before re-posting the article again.

BabyJinxi3 ( talk) 06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse for now. The primary claim of notability appears to have been that it was once owned by Gucci Group, but considering they sold it so quickly and it isn't even mentioned in the Gucchi Group article it apparently wasn't an especially big deal for them. Sourcing is also poor, including a bunch od trade sites that appear to be press releases, a 404 page, and even an attempt to use a web forum as a source(!!), which is is a big no-no. A suggestion would be to try crating an article on the parent company first, and if that passes muster then try working on the subsidiaries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the decision, and Starblind's comments, which are exactly what I was about to say. The best course would indeed to try an article on the parent company, which could include a mention of this. Alternatively, a mention could probably be inserted into the Gucci Group article--that it isn't there now does not serve as a standard for lack of notability. Or conceivably Bedat might be personally notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse the original deletions. No disrespect to the administrators who commented above but they made arguments that belong at AFD. The issue here is whether or not the version of the article that has been deleted was "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and after reviewing the text, it's a "coin flip". I probably would have taken it to AFD but it was still within admin's discretion. However, this is just my opinion but all versions of this article look as if they were written by someone with a close connection to the subject. While this is not strictly prohibited it's discouraged because it's difficult for such people to write with a neutral point of view. The article looked more like "adcopy" then an "encyclopedia article" which is why previous version were tagged with G11 in the first place. Also, one weak indicator that a subject may be notable is if someone completely unconnected with the subject elects to write an article on it. (but that in itself doesn't satisfy WP:N) As for User:BabyJinxi3, since there has never been an AFD decision on this subject, let him move it to mainspace and let the community make the call on the issue of notability. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 16:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Move to mainspace I have condensed User:BabyJinxi3 and removed the promotional material. The significant coverage in this article from Manila Standard Today demonstrates that the watch brand is notable. Cunard ( talk) 10:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Restore and list I see only one solid source, but it should be enough to ward off a speedy. I don't think it passes WP:N, but A) there may be another quality source out there and B) it has passed the speedy criteria by which it was deleted. Hobit ( talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Here is a second source (titled Bedat & Co腕錶 平民瞬間變明星) from stnn.cc. Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• I can't figure out if this is a press release or what, but I stick by the notion that there is certainly an assertion of notability and so it should go to AfD if people want it deleted. Hobit ( talk) 13:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• I've added the second source under external link into the article. Anything else I can amend prior posting this article up then? BabyJinxi3 ( talk) 02:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment When a marginal but improvable article gets deleted, it's in everyone's interest for it to be improved before going back into mainspace. In fact, I think that's the ideal result of a deletion review: everything we do is aimed at getting good mainspace articles (and good properly licensed files, etc...) DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Gay Nigger Association of America ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The Gay Nigger Association of America article has had a long and "controversial" history on Wikipedia. The article went through numerous (read: 18) RFDs before finally being deleted. Before you come to a decision on whether it should be undeleted, hear me out.

That was half a decade ago. Since then, the GNAA has been mentioned in numerous sources whos notability cannot be questioned, and can, without a doubt, be considered " notable". To quote riffic, during the last deletion review:

I would like to point out that the sources used in the draft establish notability for both organisations in the same news article. The article by the Atlantic states "Weev rails against Jews in his LiveJournal and he and several other members of Goatse Security claim to be members of the Gay N***** Association of America," and in the Portuguese article in Rede Globo, the author goes on to describe other members of the GNAA.

(Since then, the reason of why Goatse Security and the Gay Nigger Association of America are separate entities has been detailed in this interview.)

Yes, this is listed on the Perennial Requests. This does not mean that it cannot be requested for a Deletion Review. "Please read this before requesting undeletion of any of these articles" does not mean that it cannot be requested, just that a number of factors must first be considered, which they have.

• With the second wave of publicity RE: weev and JacksonBrown's arrests, the Goatse Security/GNAA connection was made a lot clearer.
  • This interview clearly establishes the link between The Gay Nigger Association of America and Goatse Security. This is the "substantial new evidence" required by WP:DEEPER.
• The Patriotic Nigras are a troll group that has undergone far less scrutiny on Wikipedia, despite having much less notable sources. I feel that we must tackle this double standard if we are to improve the encyclopedia.
• This may be seen as an "ad nauseum" request. This is not true, it has been five months since the last request for a Deletion Review. Since then, numerous sources have been added to the draft.
• This is not a frivolous request for undeletion, it is a genuine attempt at recreating an article that I feel is notable. If there are any problems with the article or anything keeping it from being undeleted, it is my intention to fix them.
• Substantial changes have been made since the September 6th Deletion Review, and the September 22nd Deletion Review was closed because it was seen as "frivolous".
• We should only argue this DRV on the merits of the claims of the AFD, which based its outcome on grounds of lack of sourcing. [1]
• There is no denying it, the Gay Nigger Association of America is notable, in their own right. It does not need to "inherit" notability from Goatse Security when it has its own.

The current draft of the article can be found here. If you do nothing else before voting, please, at least compare it to the old article (i.e. the one that was deleted five years ago.)

LiteralKa ( talk) 02:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose recreation - this is simply causing too much drama. — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:50pm • 02:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I can't believe I just watched someone rephrase WP:DONTLIKEIT LiteralKa ( talk) 02:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Can you cite a specific policy to base your opposition of inclusion for the draft article in question. riffic ( talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support' - It is hypocritical that a noteworthy organization like the GNAA is not on Wikipedia. Many groups with less credibility are, and there is hypocrisy here as a result. It's time to END the drama by recreating a page that SHOULD be here, and leaving it up for good. 76.98.237.76 ( talk) 03:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Here we go again. Oppose recreation, the current status quo is entirely satisfactory. Stifle ( talk) 08:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Can you cite a specific policy to base your opposition of inclusion for the draft article in question. riffic ( talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Stifle, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:MAJORITY. LiteralKa ( talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, and WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. LiteralKa ( talk) 03:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Counting all the AfDs and DRVs, we've been over this ground nearly thirty times now. No article for you.— S Marshall T/ C 11:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • So because of the sheer number of requests, this article will never be notable? I learn something new every day! LiteralKa ( talk) 16:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Can you cite a specific policy to base your opposition of inclusion for the draft article in question. riffic ( talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • With pleasure. WP:ADMINSHOP#FORUMSHOP: "Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording."— S Marshall T/ C 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • It is my interpretation this section WP:ADMINSHOP would apply as a behavior policy to one specific actor, or a group in collusion to act in bad faith to win sort of overall advantage in gaining consensus. All of the previous attempts at overturning deletion on this article have clearly stated under what terms it satisfies content guidelines and have always been handled in a mature manner. At this point any fear of unnecessary drama by bringing this article up before process should have died down long ago. Now, unless you have evidence of anyone acting in disregard to the terms of WP:CONSENSUS, and to the linked Wikipedia:Policy shopping, please strike out what I am to perceive as to be an accusation of bad faith. I quote "It is important to assume good faith with all editors (absent evidence to the contrary)", and further down this states "Labeling arguments as policy shopping has a negative connotation, and should only be reserved for cases in which the offending activity is prolonged and easily identifiable." riffic ( talk) 19:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Eventually there has to be closure. Editors aren't permitted to keep repeating discussions ad infinitum until they get the result they want—that would be the triumph of persistence over reason. We've discussed this enough now.— S Marshall T/ C 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
          • So are you saying it should've stopped sometime before, let's say, the 15th AfD, when the article still existed? nprice ( talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
            • Yup. In fact, it should've stopped much before that. While the article was still a redlink. This isn't Dramatica.— S Marshall T/ C 23:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
              • Oh you mean Encyclopedia Dramatica? nprice ( talk) 01:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• speedy close no new sources have been provided in this DrV and nothing I see as different from the last DrV has been argued. Hobit ( talk) 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You just said the exact same thing above, yet voted a different way! LiteralKa ( talk) 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Actually, there's been quite a few new news sources about the GNAA since the last DrV. I don't have all of them to hand, but [ [2]] is pretty helpful. I don't see how the fact that multiple AfDs and DRVs have passed if the situation has changed between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.176.240 ( talk) 16:06, 18 February 2011
    • If you want to bring something here that is on the list of perennial requests, you need to provide some darn good (new) sources. If you cannot or will not do so, you can't expect anything other than a speedy close. Hobit ( talk) 16:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • That's odd, I've done nothing but that. LiteralKa ( talk) 16:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I guess I'm missing it. Could you spell out exactly what sources you have that weren't part of previous discussions? What exactly has changed? Hobit ( talk) 22:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
          • See this, and I cannot fathom how the problem could possibly be a lack of notable sources, the article is riddled with them! (I count 32 non-GNAA sources) LiteralKa ( talk) 22:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. No, you can't get an article on Wikipedia just by asking again and again and again ad nauseum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • It has been five months, how is this "ad nauseum"? LiteralKa ( talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • But it can be AfD'd "ad nauseum" until it finally *IS* deleted? nprice ( talk) 17:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion- Really, the last AfD could not have been close any other way and I don't really see that much has changed in the meantime. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Substantial changes have been made since the September 6th Deletion Review, and the September 22nd Deletion Review was closed because it was seen as "frivolous".
  • Can you cite a specific policy to base your opposition of inclusion for the draft article in question. riffic ( talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • It was also deleted under WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. LiteralKa ( talk) 15:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Restore the article One of the more peculiar refusals to admit what everyone who knows about it knows perfectly well to be notable. Lack of common sense or distaste for the site are the two likely underlying explanations. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation – I know enough about the "Perennial requests" page. The FBI believed that the GNAA was notable enough to warrant several mentions in the criminal complaint they filed. I already wrote several articles already, and I'm confident that an article on the GNAA can be done in accordance with Wikipedia policy. weev and JacksonBrown are standing trial for their online activities, and they receive a lot of attention in the media. Connection and notability is clear: [3]. @Ancient_Apparition: Wikipedia shouldn't censor itself out of fear or convenience. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation I know there is a huge history with the GNAA and Wikipedia, but I think if someone were to create a page about a different organization with the same sourcing that Murdox's draft has there would be no issues. Qrsdogg ( talk) 00:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose recreation Per my statements in previous discussions; I don't think anything has changed since then, and GNAA is obviously something that does not deserve a Wikipedia article. I'm sure that more than half of the votes here have been canvassed in their IRC network, just like the last discussion; prove me wrong. Diego Grez ( talk) 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rather combative tone you have there. I can assure you that no canvassing has occurred. Please assume good faith in the future. Thanks in advance! LiteralKa ( talk) 00:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Okay. My comments are grounded in what happened in previous discussions; if that hasn't happened now, then I sincerely apologize for not assuming good faith. Diego Grez ( talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Would you also care to specify why the GNAA is "obviously something that does not deserve a Wikipedia article"? LiteralKa ( talk) 00:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • It's rather a personal opinion; I just don't think it deserves its own article, as most sources given in the article are either, primary sources, or they are reports on something else and make very little mention of the Gay Nigger Association of America. Diego Grez ( talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • First off, that's not true. Second, even if that were the case, the sheer number of sources would make it so that there is still plenty of mentions. Third, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to endorse the deletion. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Oh, and these edits invalidate your claims of "passing mentions". LiteralKa ( talk) 20:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• I haven't said that I don't like it; I'm just pointing out that still I don't see a single, third-party source that covers the association in depth, or at least to demonstrate this specific association's notability, and still see several primary-source-references (want the numbers? Okay: Ref #1, #4, #5, #11, #26, #27, #36 (not of the association, but Goatse Security, which claims to be "a subsidiary"), and #41). Want me to check, and comment on every single other reference, too? I'd be glad to do that! Diego Grez ( talk) 20:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Those refs are to cite claims the organization makes, I excluded those in my count of 32 good sources. And yes, actually, that would be great! LiteralKa ( talk) 20:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Also, look at 4chan, there are tons of self-references. It's not a bad thing, Diego. LiteralKa ( talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • It is incomplete, might finish it later. User:Diego Grez/GNAA references review‎ Diego Grez ( talk) 22:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I personally would prefer a complete assessment of the sources instead of the first seven so that I can properly assess how to improve the article. Thanks in advance. Murdox ( talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I don't think that anybody can state for sure that canvassing has occurred (Diego Grez) or that canvassing has not occurred (LiteralKa) but I see only one comment in this discussion that does not come from an established editor. However, IMHO it's very likely that it has. Why? Because they're the "GNAA". Any discussion here on whether or not there should be an article on them has a high probability of generating drama and drama="lulz". Lots of meatpuppets means more drama and therefore more "lulz" and creating "lulz" is what they do. This is almost as certain as a magnet will attract iron or my cat will chase a laser pointer. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 21:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Please assume good faith. LiteralKa ( talk) 21:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Name one participant in this discussion for which I have failed to do so. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 21:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • You've certainly implied that I have. LiteralKa ( talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I said that in my opinion that canvassing has occurred, I never said that you did it or suggested that this review was started in bad faith. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 21:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Just like some people believe that the Freemasons / Jews / liberal media are behind everything, some people here believe that GNAA is secretly manipulating this !vote from behind the scenes. Can we please put the conspiracy theories aside and have a productive discussion? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose recreation (strongly). Purely and simply, I oppose recreation of this article. I don't see why we should allow an organisation which has had what can only be described as a vendetta against Wikipedia and its associated IRC channels, to have a page detailing itself on the very same site that it and its members choose to fuck up mercilessly. No dice. Barking Fish 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Most of the Conservapedia users feel pretty strongly about wikipedia, and I'm in no doubt that some of their members have vandalised wikipedia at one point or another in the name of Conservapedia (if anyone could go dig up an example of this I'd love them long time). As it stands, I don't see how this is relevant to a deletion review. Could you please elaborate? Murdox ( talk) 23:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Reply. Murdox, I see it as relevant that the article shouldn't be recreated, since the organization and its members have a blatant disregard for us as a site, an organisation and as a project. Recreating this article would serve as negative reinforcement to the GNAA - It's like a mom giving sweets to her kid to shut them up during a tantrum, it serves to reinforce negative behaviour towards us from the group. If this article gets recreated, I dread to think of the future drama over it. But that's not my decision, thankfully, only an opinion. Barking Fish 00:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Can you cite a specific policy to base your opposition of inclusion for the draft article in question. riffic ( talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • My pleasure, riffic. Ignore all rules - If a policy or rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, Ignore it. The absence of the GNAA article is an improvement to Wikipedia. The fact that we're sitting here debating the General Notability Guidelines shows that we're sticking to the rules like glue. Just because something meets the guidelines for notability or any other guideline, doesn't mean it is suitable for an article on here. Barking Fish 16:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Could you quantify or explain the statement "The absence of the GNAA article is an improvement to Wikipedia." please? I understand your use of Ignore All Rules, but there usually has to be a pretty good reason behind it to stop it devolving into WP:POINT. Thanks in advance. Murdox ( talk) 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Of course :) - The presence of the article on the GNAA here has caused enough drama to have it AFD'd "God only knows" how many times, it's resulted in argument after argument over its presence, the quality of the article and so on. By removing the article, it would hopefully remove the drama concerning it and the content of the same, whether it should be here (or not, as the case may be) and would therefore prove to be a net positive. Wikipedia is trying to quell drama and arguments, edit wars and stuff, and this article has, as a location for this kind of thing, been one of the top targets. Removing it and keeping it removed will hopefully end all the shenanigans surrounding it. Barking Fish 21:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Because it being previously removed worked *SO* well, let's do it again! There hasn't been ANY drama or controversy about the article since it was successfully AfD'd the last time... nprice ( talk) 22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Would it not be more prudent to stick to process and assess the article donning a Veil of Ignorance, rather than creating a prescedent that could negatively influence Deletion Policy on less drama-inducing articles--perhaps your own articles. It's obvious all sides care about their view, and let emotion get the best of them (or bring out the worst), but let's focus on logic rather than personal preference. If you wish to make changes to Deletion Policy, progress them to proper channels. Strong Support Grammaryan.Nation ( talk) 22:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Grammaryan.Nation ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • That is, quite simply, a terrible argument against recreation. This isn't some juvenile tit-for-tat game. The only question at hand should be whether or not the subject warrants an article. The preponderance of sources means it does. Whether or not you like the GNAA or think they have a vendetta against Wikipedia, they are still notable and warrant an article. We don't "get back at" our so-called enemies by refusing to write about them. That's just childish. Throwaway85 ( talk) 08:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Request: Would an admin add {{Delrevafd|date=2011 February 18}} to the AfD page? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Done. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, Lifebaka. Cunard ( talk) 01:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment If we were to disregard every single policy action against this article, and examine it in a new light against the existing content guidelines, yes this article would pass a first draft keep onto wikipedia. Put all former preconceptions aside and examine this article solely on a content policy basis -- the sourcing is solid, and the references are cited. This article has been improved since the last action here at deletion review, while standing the last n months in constant scrutiny nonetheless attempts via miscellanea for deletion being denied. Endorsers of deletion have not yet put forward any convincing argument citing a specific policies or guidelines this article fails to meet. riffic ( talk) 06:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• • And just what makes you think we're gonna look at this article in a different way to all the others, hm? "If we were to disregard every policy action against this article...." - When it comes to something like this, policy actions are the last thing we should be ignoring. Sourced or not, the topic is one which had it not have been so much fucking drama, would have been salted against recreation when it first appeared. Barking Fish 12:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please maintain a civil tone in your reply to me. riffic ( talk) 15:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I will maintain whatever tone I so desire, as long as I'm not attacking you personally :) This is a highly emotive subject, and letting slip one sweary is hardly going to cause World War III. Either way, I've struck the offending word, even though I didn't want to. Whatever happens, I still think that we shouldn't recreate the article - We don't allow vandalism at Wikipedia, so why recreate an article on a whole bunch of them? Barking Fish 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If it was true that wikipedia didn't allow articles about groups critical of Wikipedia, we wouldn't have Conservapedia or Encyclopedia_Dramatica. Wikipedia's policy on vandalism is primarily to stop the glorification of distasteful edits. I think your argument would hold a lot more merit if my draft of the article contained content like "Here's a list of every wikipedia user the GNAA has trolled". As it stands, I've attempted to avoid mentioning most anything to do with wikipedia at all in my draft unless it's from an external source (in this case, Andrew Lih). Murdox ( talk) 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Antagonism towards Wikipedia is no cause for denying the creation of an article on a subject. That's just not how we roll. Besides, nothing the GNAA did comes close to ED or several other groups. BF, if you're going to argue so vociferously, you'll need to find a better argument. Also, tone it down a notch. Throwaway85 ( talk) 08:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose recreation Beyond the distastefulness of the topic (which I agree is irrelevant), the sources provide only the most marginal grounds for establishing notability. When GNAA is the main subject of an informative article at a reputable source, then it could be reconsidered. But drive-by references to a marginal trolling group do not make for notability. Eusebeus ( talk) 10:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Being the main subject of an informative article is not a requirement of the General Notability Guideline. Please read WP:N and you will see under the terms stated this article is presumed to satisfy the criteria for inclusion -- namely a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. The references attached to the current draft under review, specifically the Jodi Dean and Andrew Lih citations are more substantial than trivial mentions, and as it stands the terms of the General Notability Guideline are satisfied. riffic ( talk) 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Nope, don't see GNG being satisfied by those sources. I accept you disagree. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong Support - Recent media coverage has removed any legitimacy from its previous deletions whch were said to be carried out under the guise of notability. incog ( talk) 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation - The draft passes current content guidelines, and the only argument the opposition is using right now is wp:drama riffic ( talk) 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Allow restoration - The sheer fact that the article has been AfD'd and DRV'd and whatnot so many times, and so many different people have weighed in their opinions, proves beyond a doubt that the organization *IS* notable (whether the people arguing against will admit to it or not). The article itself has numerous properly cited sources, and is well within Wikipedia guidelines. The fact of the matter is that given how polarizing the subject is, if the article is not recreated, different people will continue to petition that it should be allowed. If it *IS* recreated, the "other camp" will continue to petition that it should be deleted. If drama is going to happen either way, why not at least leave some useful content on the site? nprice ( talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I think the only way we'll settle this is to get a comment from Jimbo and let him say what he thinks, after all, it's the site he started which they've been fucking with. Posting to JW's talk page and will await his reply. Barking Fish 01:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess we'll know this is important if Jimbo decides to interrupt his vacation over it. Qrsdogg ( talk) 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

He hasn't said he won't contribute, he will be coming on now and again - just that in his own words, he "won't be doing any heavy lifting" - I don't know whether commenting on a DR is "heavy lifting", but we'll just have to wait and find out, won't we? :) Barking Fish 03:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I know, that wasn't sarcasm on my part. He probably will only comment if he sees this as important. I don't quite understand the emotion this subject generates in some people, so I wonder how he will respond. Qrsdogg ( talk) 03:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• • We welcome Mr. Wales thoughts as we welcome all thoughts, and appreciate the Vision through which this article could be made possible. However, even the founder knows that his opinion isn't any more valid than another, just because of his role. Discussions can only be fruitful, if all contributors contribute valid, logical, input, and not stray from informed, intelligent discussion. We should be ever mindful that we don't censor that with which we disagree, on a basis that we don't like it. Furthermore, we should also be mindful of canvassing for specific opinions in hopes of reaching a favorable consensus; it not only undermines the system placed before us, but also undermines the contributions you have brought to the discussion. Grammaryan.Nation ( talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Number one, argument from authority is very effective in informal logic (which is what this discussion is); someone who's been with this project 10 years would have a better handle on GNG than most of us. Secondly, IDONTLIKEIT cuts both ways; ILIKEIT isn't any more valid. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 06:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • GNG is written in no unclear terms - while I'd appreciate Jimbo's input, I don't think it's necessary. Community consensus is what matters (which will probably never happen) - but if people view that the article does not pass GNG - where should its content be placed? A subsection of Goatse Security? nprice ( talk) 07:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted We don't need this. Try Encyclopedia Dramatica. 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 06:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Please read WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. LiteralKa ( talk) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the status quo. I expect the bar should be somewhat higher when an organization appears to be entirely self-promotional, which is the case here. No one who wants to be taken seriously picks a name like GNAA, and I'm entirely supportive of us not taking the organization seriously. Jclemens ( talk) 07:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

That's not a valid reason for opposing recreation. It has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is our only criteria. Throwaway85 ( talk) 07:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. The GNAA has many mentions in reliable secondary sources (Ars, Wired, etc), which makes it notable. The nature of coverage on the group has changed significantly since its original deletion. Weev's recent arrest has caused much of this. People saying we shouldn't have this article because it causes drama are missing the point, and doing so in quite a myopic manner. We don't have articles here because we like the subject or it's easy, we have articles because the subjects are notable, period. The GNAA clearly passes WP:GNG, so we should have the article. Throwaway85 ( talk) 07:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted I took a look at the references in the recreated article and they seem to be a mix of blogs and other non-notable sources. Some sources, like the Atlantic article, are notable reliable but they are about Weev and not about the GNAA. The proper place for this material is in the Weev article and the Goatse article mentioned above. (FD: I saw the note posted on Jimbo's talk page and came here.) -- rgpk ( comment) 15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You're choosing to ignore printed book references such as Andrew Lih and Jodi Dean. There are enough reliable sources to satisfy the GNG. riffic ( talk) 16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • As an admin you might be aware of this and I hate to engage in pedantry, but there is no single guideline that states a source itself must be notable. A source indicates notability, yes, and must be reliable, but in itself the source being a notable one is not a requirement under any of wikipedia's content policies. riffic ( talk) 16:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • To be honest, those two references only strengthen my case. A para in some book does not a notable organization make. Something in the Weev article along the lines of Weev created the Gay Niggers Association of America (GNAA) to disrupt Wikipedia (cite Lih) and the internet (cite Dean) appears to more than adequately cover the group. I meant to say reliable rather than notable. apologies and corrected. -- rgpk ( comment) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • This would be true, of course, if these were the only two references attached to the draft. This is not the case. These two references, in addition to all the other reliable sources used as references in the draft are used in their entirety to construct this article. riffic ( talk) 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Comment I am almost 100% Weev did not create the GNAA. An example of WP:Synth, perhaps. Murdox ( talk) 18:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
          • rgpk didn't read the citations, or he would have seen that these two references don't even mention Weev. These two citations, however, do address the subject of the draft directly in detail; enough to be considered not a trivial mention. This warrants a standalone article. riffic ( talk) 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
            • Sigh. I didn't realize you're hovering over me and watching everything I do. Must remember to keep my clothes on :) I read the text included with the citations and perhaps incorrectly concluded from scanning the blogs that Weev created GNAA (an excellent reason not to use blogs as sources). This should not be surprising since I've never heard of Weev or the GNAA before. So who created GNAA? My main point is that beyond the one sentence above there is not much else to say about this organization.-- rgpk ( comment) 19:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
              • Someone correcting you is not "hovering over [you] and watching everything [you] do." Do not compare other editors to voyeurs, please. LiteralKa ( talk) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted No evidence of significant coverage in multiple, secondary reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail, to meet the general inclusion criteria. Google Books, Google News]. 62.25.109.195 ( talk) 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Except of course all the references attached to the draft. riffic ( talk) 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Mr Wales has replied on his talk page :) - I note his comments here, and it looks like we're no further forward...

(From JW's talk page, in response to my post:) - I have no strong view. It may well be the case that the irony here is that our taking so long to delete their article when they weren't notable, gave them an aura of being notable that led to significant press coverage. I am curious to know whether the *group* is really notable, as opposed to the one guy. But I don't really want to be involved, as I'm not very interested in the subject.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 7:44 pm, Today (UTC+0)

So we're still in a hang. Thanks for your patience anyway guys :D Barking Fish 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• "Sorry guys, you took so long that they actually ARE notable now." :P nprice ( talk) 20:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary Header

The first paragraph of WP:NOREFS reads: "When notability is in doubt, and that is the reason given for deletion, the very best way to counteract that is to demonstrate notability." riffic, among others, has done this numerous times. GNAA has been involved in numerous events. The page is not an advertisement, it is notable as per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.

So far, the only arguments for keeping it deleted fall under WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, WP:ATTP, WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:JNN, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOEFFORT. Coincidentally, these are all listed under the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I would also suggest reading WP:DRAMA, if you have not already done so.

Those against recreating the article are asking the draft to be bombarded with references to demonstrate a level notability beyond that of other articles. The editors involved in the upkeep of the draft have done everything to avoid this, as it is simply "un-encyclopedic".

Those for the recreation of the article have pointed out that the GNAA is notable (see: the next paragraph), and that there is a good working draft of the article. In the five years since the deletion of the article, the draft has come a long way.

It is ridiculous that riffic has to repeat his assertions of notability over and over again.

For those who will inevitably accuse me of wikilawyering, gaming the system, or even " wikifinagling", I would like to point out that deletion reviews are a formal process, and citing policies and guidelines in a formal process should not be frowned upon.

I notice that BarkingFish has potentially violated WP:CANVASS with an appeal to Jimmy Wales with this edit, in a likely attempt to cite WP:JIMBOSAID. In doing this, he violated both the neutral and nonpartisan requirements for a notification (see the first example of WP:GAMETYPE), thus canvassing. He treated this deletion review like a vote, which it is not. It seems to be an attempt to undermine the deletion review process and get his way in the matter (if I am wrong, please, correct me). Otherwise, his actions are against the spirit of the encyclopedia and will not go unnoticed. LiteralKa ( talk) 23:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Without reading any of this mess it is worth mentioning that on multiple occasions Jibmo has made it clear that it isn't Canvassing to bring issues to him and his talk page. There is a large precedent of nasty or important or wide ranging issues being brought to Jimbo's attention via that page, and Jimbo has said repeatedly that he welcomes that. If BarkingFish went to 27 other people's talk pages, it would be canvassing, but you didn't say that he did that. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Jimbo can say whatever he wants. The fact of the matter is that his talk page is watched by a lot of people. It is effectively a forum, and should be treated as such. Additionally, canvassing does not only apply to mass posting. (also you just cited WP:JIMBOSAID, lol) LiteralKa ( talk) 23:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

There's also a "large precedent" for reading all what people write before responding. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

All right, now you're wikilawyering. Jimbo has asked to be treated like an ordinary user, and leaving a notification on his talkpage about yet another DRV for an article with a rather controversial wiki-history makes perfect sense given that he's the founder. If he said, "I think this should be 100% overturned and restored to mainspace", I somehow doubt you'd be worried about canvassing. I don't really have an opinion on this (at least yet), but now you're grasping at straws. And by the way, the fact that one user (riffic) believes that the sources are evidence of substantial coverage doesn't mean that everyone has to share his opinion; interpretation is subjective, after all. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Jimbo can be treated like an ordinary user, to an extent. Blatantly disregarding the facts re: his user page is just ignorance. I still would be worried about canvassing, because it's an obvious attempt at one. riffic has put it perfectly, hence my citation of him, I can cite others, if I must. Please stop ignoring the facts. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not ignoring anything, just pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments which I won't rehash. My previous post speaks for itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

That's odd, I just pointed out the obvious flaws in all of your arguments (which I won't rehash), riffic, mine, and others posts speak for themselves. You are ignoring the fact that Jimbo Wales talk page is not a normal talk page, regardless of how we should treat him. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You aren't giving any reason why it's canvassing. Posting something in a public forum isn't canvassing; plenty of people watch it, and people with both opinions are likely to see it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

LiteralKa, if you feel for any reason that I am responsible for Canvassing, you are welcome (I have no objections to this) to post a message at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents and allow the admins to deal with this in any way they see fit. Barking Fish 01:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC) +1EC reply

I'm not going to, because a) the "damage" is done, and b) it's your first offense. It says on WP:CANVASS that repeat offenders should be reported. (i.e. assuming good faith on the part of the editor in question) LiteralKa ( talk) 01:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I would suggest actually reading my post above, then, Blade. And you know just as well as I do that people who watch Jimbo's talk page are not likely to have a neutral opinion, which is required under WP:CANVASS when reaching a wide audience, and not an individual. An e-mail would have worked fine. (Also, this is a Deletion Review, not WP:AN/I, please talk about the deletion. TYIA) LiteralKa ( talk) 01:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Fair enough; like I said above, I don't really have an opinion on this just yet, although I may come back later. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC) My points above still stand, however.06:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

(RE Blade of the Northern Lights)

Whether or not he is wikilawyering has no place in this discussion. The DRV is a formal process, one in which such acts are allowed. That being said, I do not see where LiteralKa has used technicalities of policies, whilst ignoring the "heart" of the policies, nor have I seen him using them as a way to "defeat" others, but instead seems to be using them to flesh out his argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see his actions as Wikilawering.

If you believe Jimbo should be treated as a normal user, why should he even be mentioned in this discussion? Why did BarkingFish run to him in the first place, or even seek his opinion? By your argument of him being a normal user, anything that I say, outside of this DRV, talk page, or the wiki, would have no place here, so should his, as a normal user? You cannot enjoy welfare while making billions.

Next, while many people may or may not be nonpartisan when reading his page, it must also be pointed out that Jimbo, as a user, is totally unaware of the GNAA, and has little knowledge of it. As such, he does not meet the quidelines for "interested people", whom ought to be contacted to flesh out a discussion. To reach

It appears to me that it was not only {riffic}, but many others that shared his POV, though {LiteralKa} never cited them outside of the weasle-worded phrase. Even so, I do not see it as much of a stretch to agree that the GNAA is notable. With weev incarcerated, due to an incident that was widely reported on, and has continuing coverage on notable news sources, the page doesn't have any qualms with WP:INHERITED.

(RE Sven)

Might you cite the "multiple occasions" in which Jimbo has said these things?

Acostoss ( talk) 12:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Acostoss ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

So far from it being canvassing to ask Jimbo on his talk page, what I have observed in the last year or two, is that when he gives an opinion or takes an action, often people try to look for any possible reason for opposing his view. Additionally, bringing anything to wide public notice runs the risk that the public will not support you. For this particular issue, this question is entwined in the history of Wikipedia, and I can't think of anyone better to ask. (of course, I may be saying this because I in this instance support his position that the long debate here may have made it notable. ) As I see it, the safest practice with obnoxious things is to give them very brief neutral coverage rather than to try to remove all mention. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Just because it happens a lot doesn't make it right. Bringing such an issue to wide public notice to people with polarized views seems to fit WP:CANVASS pretty well, IMO. LiteralKa ( talk) 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose recreation per Jclemens. He basically said it better than how I can. – MuZemike 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow me to quote Throwaway85 from the reply immediately below that: "That's not a valid reason for opposing recreation. It has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is our only criteria." Would you perhaps respond to this? LiteralKa ( talk) 03:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: if Jclemens out of all said it better than how you can (pardon me, but ROFL), could you maybe explain how higher that bar should be set? If it is so obvious, surely there is some precedent. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 13:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I still have yet to see a delete !vote that cites a valid, applicable policy. I have searched for one, and I cannot find one. LiteralKa ( talk) 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You've made your opinion abundantly clear; please don't bludgeon us to death with it. Your viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 04:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

That doesn't seem to be a "valid, applicable policy". I don't see how it's " bludgeoning" if you cannot come up with a single valid policy for keeping this deleted. LiteralKa ( talk) 12:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

It becomes bludgeoning when you shove it in our faces at every given opportunity, as both yourself and riffic seem to have done. We can clearly see how you feel, you know how most of us feel, so kindly stop ramming it down our throats please. What's said is said, let's just get on with either discussing it, or waiting for the poor, unfortunate soul who has to short this den of iniquity out and close the debate :) Barking Fish 13:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm still waiting for a policy. Could there perhaps not be one? LiteralKa ( talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not happy with your accusations. Is this your policy-based persuasive argument now? riffic ( talk) 16:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not exactly chuffed with the accusation made by LiteralKa of Canvassing (which he still hasn't retracted despite being told he's wrong) and your persistant badgering of "Can you quote a policy on which to base your opposition" blah blah blah etc. My argument is simple. Let's not argue, let's let the closing admin decide what best to do with it. Barking Fish 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

First off, I have already responded to the claims that I am mistaken, and you know this. Being told that I am wrong and being proven wrong are two completely different things, and considering the fact that you apologized for canvassing, I don't see the need to retract anything. Second, the refusal of you, among others, to provide logic behind what seems to be a purely emotional opposition isn't me going "blah blah blah blah", or even an argument. LiteralKa ( talk) 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I apologized for it? Damn. I must be doing things without remembering, since I don't recall having apologized for anything whatsoever. - I refuted the allegation, and offered you the chance to take it to ANI if you wanted, but I certainly haven't apologized - I don't normally do that unless I've done something wrong, which in this case, I haven't. Barking Fish 18:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

My IRC logs say differently. LiteralKa ( talk) 18:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Please do forward me a copy, since you aren't allowed to post them here. I can be reached through the Special:Emailuser thingy on the toolbar. Barking Fish 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong support per Jimbo. He basically said it better than how I can. Since the Goatse Security drama, their notability has certainly improved far beyond the biased standards forced to that article. I don't see why "the bar should be somewhat higher when an organization appears to be entirely self-promotional", or why "an organisation which has had what can only be described as a vendetta against Wikipedia and its associated IRC channels, [should not be allowed] to have a page detailing itself on the very same site". Other oppose arguments are "this is simply causing too much drama", "the current status quo is entirely satisfactory". Are you writing an encyclopedia or are you having your personal crusade against the GNAA? Please take those arguments to meta. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

  I think the underlying idea behind Jclemens' argument is best summed up here. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but I think that's the mentality. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation, but suggest drafting before moving into mainspace; I'm convinced there's notability here that could lead to an article; that's all that should matter here. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • If you mean a working draft, there's one here. LiteralKa ( talk) 23:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply