Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 March 15
2011 March 17 >

16 March 2011

  • Gay Nigger Association of America – overturn. Apologies, in advance, for my normal long rationale - on the plus side, DRV's format means it'll be in tiny type! Disclaimer: I was tangentally involved in having this listed here; that is, I debated the pro's and cons of doing so on LiteralKa's talkpage. This is not because I have any particular opinions on the merits of the article or the subject, but rather because I felt that the last DRV lacked a "full" close. Hopefully my rather extended rationale here means we can, to use a turn of phrase, take the twitching body of this perpetual debate and finally stake it to death. I hear garlic works, too, but my spice cabinet is all out of it. In the interests of maintaing neutrality and avoiding the appearance of controversy (when the entire point of this is to end the controversy) I have stayed away from all discussions relating to this DRV, including the DRV itself, since the review proposal was listed a week ago. Hopefully this is sufficient.

The GNAA and Wikipedia have a controversial and difficult history. The nature of their activities, their focus on "trolling" (which includes both trolling the project and its users, and trolling the IRC channels} makes it understandably difficult for a lot of users to approach the subject of their inclusion with anything approaching rationality, emotional concerns overriding objectivity.

Quite frankly, I'm suprised by the relative uniformity of the debate - new users, old users, deletionists and inclusionists, the vast majority of the contributors to this discussion want the last decision overturned. Consensus is clear; that the article draft listed should be put in place of the current redlink, and prior discussions voided. A few points do, however, need to be cleared up. One legitimate concern is that while many sources show some semblance of notability, a lot are unreliable. This is not something that is for DRV or AfD; if there is consensus that the body passes WP:ORG, any debates over content are for the talkpage, as they do not relate to deletion. Another legitimate, and more pressing concern, is that the article (once restored) can be again listed at AfD. From a practical point of view, this is an issue, because it means the cycle just continues over and over again. Speaking theoretically (and this is just my opinion), consensus can change. notability, however, is not temporary; unless a user can pull up new evidence as to why the arguments in favour of overturning are invalid, I feel (again, personal opinion) that immediately AfDing it would be inappropriate.

There have also been some illegitimate arguments. Applying WP:DENY is the prominent one; we cannot apply that to article content. The moment we start discriminating amongst content not for its objective value but for the subject's relation to the community, our goal of having a neutral encyclopedia with certain standards is sunk. We begin to believe that notability is based not on how verifiable a subject is but how nice they are to us. Similarly, the idea that the GNAA should somehow be held to a higher standard because of their history with us is ludicrous. WP:N does not exist to define what is and is not important. It exists to define what is and is not verifiable. It is for this reason that arguments such as "verifiable existence you'll get, notable no" are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of policy and the reasons behind policy.

Still, the tone of the debate has generally been good. We've had argument, corollary, counter-argument, rebuttal, a decent analysis of the reliability of the sources. We've had new users and old users and people from all over the philosophical spectrum showing exactly what makes Wikipedia a fantastic place; the ability of users to set aside differences in ideology, set aside differences in experience, set aside emotional and personal concerns, come together and make a decision. Thank you, all of you, for contributing to what has been both the most spirited and civil debate I've seen since becoming an administrator. Consensus is to overturn; quibbles about individual bits of content can be sent to the talkpage, and hatemail to the usual address. – Ironholds ( talk) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gay Nigger Association of America ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
I am not and have never been associated with the GNAA, but I have seen this issue come up on IRC and have been following it as best I can. I have not been canvassed regarding this issue.

The GNAA article appears to have been given short shrift in its last full-length DRV; most commentors weighed in with statements about whether or not they liked the GNAA, rather than their opinions on the article's improved sourcing. Similarly, the last two DRV closes have mostly been based on the disruption of LiteralKa starting multiple DRVs and/or the commentors' dislike of the issue.

Nevertheless, the article in its current draft form does show potential beyond what mere "GNAA is annoying" can counteract, and in an effort to put this issue to rest (at least for the near future) to everyone's satisfaction, I have spoken to LiteralKa ( talk · contribs). S/he has agreed that the results of this DRV will be binding upon him/her for six months from its close. There is no quid-pro-quo expectation here; however, I very strongly urge commentors this time around to focus their arguments on whether the article meets our criteria for inclusion rather than whether the GNAA may or may not have worn out its welcome here. My hope is that this DRV discussion can be based on the merits of the article, especially its sourcing (in the context of internet phenomena, I would argue that places like Boing Boing and Gizmodo are certainly reliable) and notability, rather than on whether the GNAA is disliked by the WP community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from the closer of the last DRV. I don't have an opinion on this nomination, but to the admin who closes this, make sure your privacy is pretty tight; I had a couple IPs make a serious attempt at finding my personal information, including my real name and address. It has since been oversighted, but I don't want to see that happen to anyone else. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 18:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from a participant to the last DRV: I voiced my opinion in favour of restoring the article, and just yesterday a friend of mine found his long lost cat who had been missing for weeks. I'd certainly want to see that happen to others. Guaranteed true story. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 10:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • A bit disrespectful to downplay concerns for one's personal privacy. Believe it or not, there are people out there who do that kind of crap. Research this guy, for instance. Killiondude ( talk) 17:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn: I admittedly don't know how this all works but having been sort of following this drama on irc as well I see no reason at all for this article not to exist. It's got far more factual information backed up by reliable sources than the typical article about pokemon or whatever, and wikipedia definitely has no shortage of that sort of content. 184.247.156.97 ( talk) 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn It's time to be sensible about this. By now, even the campaign to keep it out of Wikipedia is an element of notability -- see ref. 16 in the article. WP:OSTRICH, an essay that needs more careful attention. Can be otherwise stated as a combination of NOT CENSORED, and the advisability of not acting like a bunch of priggish fools. (this is not a personal attack with respect to anything that might be said here; it is an attack on a certain attitude.) DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, with a bit of history. It is not because "GNAA is disliked by the WP community" that we have historically held them to a higher standard. That is, it is not their general trollishness that is the chief cause of concern, but their very long-term history of specifically trolling our criteria of inclusion, which, as DGG concedes just above and is stated in the lead paragraph of the draft article, is one of the principal reasons for their notability. I have never bought this and I never will; no matter how notable WP itself may have become by now, publicly contesting our notability standards cannot itself confer notability. Chick Bowen 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
As a sidenote, If they protest WP:N publically enough to be notable, then actually they would. I'm not sure that's the case, but we do accept other memes and internet phenomenon for inclusion on the basis of widespread *internet* notability even if there haven't been non-net third-party sources. like them or not, some of these groups are big enough that they are possible of conferring notability if they talk about them as a third party. HominidMachinae ( talk) 08:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • This is, by far, not "one of the principal reasons for their notability", the two Apple trolls, among other things, are. The only mention of Wikipedia is a single sentence. LiteralKa ( talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • CommentAllow Recreation Is there a concise list of references establishing WP:ORG for this group as distinct from the notability of Goatse Security? I looked at a lot of the references, but most were establishing the notability of specific actions attributed to the group, but did not really establish the notability of the group itself. A separate list of any that do would be helpful. Monty845 ( talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
See the Apple trolls for one such example.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
See ref #s 7, 8, 16, 17, 20, and 26 (this is excluding GNAA's "activities")
LiteralKa ( talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
There seems to be enough there to justify notability, so I'll go with overturn, specifically on the basis of refs #16, #17 and #20. I'm not really sure the others really establish the notability for a variety of reasons, but those 3 are enough. Monty845 ( talk) 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn This seems to pass both parts of WP:NGO. In addition there seems to be enough sources to pass the WP:GNG. We should not hold this article to a stricter unwritten slandered because they disrupt wikipedia. -- Guerillero | My Talk 23:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn 1) GNAA no longer meets any of the criteria for deletion, or even is close to meeting them. 2) GNAA easily passes WP:GNG and clearly demonstrates notability. 3) When compared with the revision that was deleted five years ago, the working draft is almost completely unrecognizable. All of the old article's problems have been addressed. LiteralKa ( talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn In previous DrVs, admins claimed that there was "consensus" that the article should remain deleted. While this may be true, there was no consensus as to *WHY* it should remain deleted. As active as the DrVs were, there were many users and just as many reasons why they didn't want the article included in Wikipedia. Were there a solid, valid reason, most of the users would have agreed upon it. The only consensus in the DrVs has been that numerous users are grasping at straws for reasons rather than admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The GNAA draft is far more sound than many articles that have survived multiple VfDs for the same "reasons" (such as Rob Levin). We must hold all articles to the same standard, regardless of our personal opinions. Personally, I think the appropriate action would be to recreate the GNAA article, and add a "Goatse Security" section which would be merged in. nprice ( talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • One other topic of note, if the ORIGINAL article really did have issues, it wouldn't've taken 20 VfDs to delete, and it's pretty much universally accepted that the new draft is much better. nprice ( talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse by applying WP:DENY to real life. GNAA exists for the "purpose" of shock value: whether someone wants to change the electronic bits within our database or manipulate life and coverage, vandalism is vandalism, and should be rewarded appropriately. Jclemens ( talk) 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Did you just compare a well-sourced article to vandalism? I'm hurt. I have dedicated a significant amount of time to the article in question, and if all it amounts to is vandalism, it's a waste. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Breaching AT&T's security is far beyond simply vandalizing or manipulating Wikipedia. The GNAA doesn't require an article in order to be notable. A Wikipedia article doesn't create notability for the subject. Denying the GNAA an article isn't going to make them lose notability and fade away. The article has been deleted for over four years, but that hasn't diminished the GNAA's reputation. Keeping the article deleted per WP:DENY only creates a false sense of security and perhaps a false sense of victory as well. How will a Wikipedia article create "shock value" anyway? Are concern that someone would search "gay niggers" on Google and find an encyclopedia article instead the porn and penises one might expect? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 01:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Several points to bring up, the first being that it's more than just a bit of a stretch to apply WP:DENY to real life. I find it rather disturbing that an admin would even try to make that claim. Second, even under your logic, WP:DENY doesn't apply. WP:DENY applies to vandals, not trolls. (note the number of times the word 'troll' is mentioned, etc.) LiteralKa ( talk) 01:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close. Four DRVs in a month is just plain ridiculous. T. Canens ( talk) 05:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    Are you saying Speedy close Overturn? Because that seems to be what the consensus is (to the extent that it is clear yet). I think this is a serious DRV and shouldn't be discounted simply because past ones did not make as strong a case. Monty845 ( talk) 05:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Could you cite a policy, guideline, essay, etc. as to why you think GNAA does not qualify for an article? LiteralKa ( talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Close this DRV and salt all Gay Nigger Association of America XfDs for three months from the close of this DRV per WP:DENY - The draft GNAA article reads, "Its aim is to sow disruption on the Internet. Lih has noted on the groups activities within Wikipedia, claiming that by adhering to every rule, they can use the system against itself." Four DRVs in a month. How is that withing the rules and if it is (seems to be since the admins are allowing it), the rules need to be changed. What about the rules Wikipedia is not a battleground - Wikipedia is not a place to carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice or hatred - and Wikipedia is not an anarchy - Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. Someone needs to close this DRV. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Could you cite a policy, guideline, essay, etc. as to why you think GNAA does not qualify for an article? LiteralKa ( talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • That would be inconsistent with WP:DENY. I get it. DRV allows requests to consider new information. The GNAA draft has (or maybe it hasn't - who knows! Lets discuss.) received new information four times in the last month and now we are on the fourth DRV in a month. My guess is that GNAA is going to keep posting DRVs to keep promoting its offensive name in Wikipedia through XfDs (and laughing all the way to the Internet disruption bank) without concerned about meeting article policy. The fact this DRV was not closed before I got here and has long continued after my post -- even though GNAA is up to 17 or 20 XfDs (or more) -- shows that Wikipedia is not ready to handle this and DRV's lack of clear rules on rapid, successive DRV nominations can be used against itself to sow disruption on Wikipedia. Since the degree to which GNAA has been noticed by independent sources is less than the amount of disruption the topic continues to cause in Wikipedia, speedy close this DRV and salt all Gay Nigger Association of America XfDs for three months from the close of this DRV per WP:DENY. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • If you had actually read the nomination, you would have seen that the DRV renomination issue has been addressed. (And there's only been about 10 real AfDs and DRVs combined, sans trolls and speedy close/keep and snowballs.) LiteralKa ( talk) 21:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • The above DRV nomination inadaquately addressed the rapid DRV renominations and failed to address cumulative disruption of Wikipedia over this topic. Allowing an article for this topic will increase the amount of disruption this topic will cause in Wikipedia and no one at this DRV has adaquately rebutted that. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 04:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
            • I don't follow your reasoning here. If the AFD's and DRV's about the GNAA are disrupting Wikipedia, wouldn't giving them an article actually stop the disruption? Besides, we have articles on some GNAA related topics, such as Goatse Security and weev–I don't think that the project has really been disrupted by their presence so I don't see why this article would be any different. Of all the problems that are facing Wikipedia, having an article with a possibly offensive title is a pretty minor issue, IMHO. Qrsdogg ( talk) 04:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
            • The Encyclopedia Dramatica article isn't causing disruption. Here's a few things to keep in mind about "offensive titles": Gay niggers is a redirect that'll appear on the auto-complete drop-down list, Patriotic Nigras has an article, and people are more likely to be offended by the nude photos on several articles or File:Virgin_Killer.jpg. WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not Wikipedia's duty to prevent people from being offended by what they see or find. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 11:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Qrsdogg: I think you are missing the point, GNAA is here to create disruption (as per the draft article).  Since the goal is disruption, having an article has nothing to do with this discussion.  If you look at why we had so many AfDs, someone by the name of GNAA was demanding that the article be deleted.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I think that you, sir, are missing the point. Having an article is this discussion. The GNAA's intentions play no role in this DRV, whether or not the draft meets the criteria for deletion does. LiteralKa ( talk) 00:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
29 comments by one participant is evidence of WP:THELASTWORD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
And 18 AfDs isn't? How dare you accuse me of something like that. The vast majority of my edits to this page have been in response to the "source review". Please do your homework before accusing me of that ever again. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm not really sure that they are here just to create disruption. I can't vouch for everything they've ever done on-wiki (I've only been here for a year or so) but from what I've seen they're simply trying to get us to apply our existing notability policies to their group. Sure there have been a lot of discussions about their article, but only a few of them were actually started by members of the group, IIRC. Qrsdogg ( talk) 01:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted and deny all requests with prejudice for the next three months. This endeavour to keep relisting until it gets undeleted is nothing other than an argument by attrition. Stifle ( talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Could you cite a policy, guideline, essay, etc. as to why you think GNAA does not qualify for an article? LiteralKa ( talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • The previous consensus should be quite enough for now. Stifle ( talk) 13:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Citing a policy would help your argument be more than just "as per consensus". (See: WP:CCC for why merely citing consensus is not a very strong argument.) LiteralKa ( talk) 13:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • I also would like to point out that genuine efforts have been made to improve the article, with good results, in between each of the (serious) DRVs. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Please note that, as I stated above, LiteralKa has agreed to abide by the result of this DRV for at least six months; ending this DRV early for the purpose of cutting off further nominations is therefore redundant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 13:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Comment People insisting that this not be nominated for another three months leads me to believe that they didn't even read the nomination. LiteralKa ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • They probably didn't. I'm attempting to speak from an objective position here, but when something gets nominated ~30 times, you're bound to receive "enough already" !votes. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Which the closing admin would be smart to ignore. LiteralKa ( talk) 16:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Reminds me of how the original article was deleted. nprice ( talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Create- Simple, long-ingrown bias has prevented what should have been created by now as it is a simple WP:GNG pass. Funny how people still hotly contest this, while the project still has an article about a unremarkable bump in the landscape. Love them priorities. Tarc ( talk) 16:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • question I've looked over the sources and few seem to actually mention this group by name and those that do are largely in passing. Now there are a lot of sources and I only hit the first 10 or so. But unless the person starting this DrV can list 3-4 that they think best meet WP:N, I don't see a way to fairly evaluate this without putting in massive time. So can the nom please point to those 3 or 4 best sources? Hobit ( talk) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Err, if you accept that, why are you arguing for two separate articles? NW ( Talk) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not arguing for two separate articles. There isn't any reason why the GNAA and Goatse Security can't be discussed in the same article. The problem is that it's hard to discuss the GNAA in detail within the Goatse Security article, but it would be easy to have a GNAA article with sections discussing Goatse Security in detail. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: the webwereld.nl article refers to the group as both GNAA and NGAA. riffic ( talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment*I think a GNAA article that contained in-depth discussion on the Goatse Security group would be the best possible solution, *especially* considering weev's statements in the press. Murdox ( talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    — Murdox ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment removed. lifebaka ++ 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 75.54.139.45 ( talk) 17:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation based on my previous DRV rationale, draft meets wp:gng riffic ( talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for much in this debate, but I personally feel that the current draft is wiki-worthy. While there are a few iffy sources in there, they are also backed up by strong, legitimate sources demonstrating notability from global media. In an ideal world, wikipedia's deletion policy would work purely based on the quality and notability of the article in question. However, as many experienced wikipedians can testify to, it's extremely hard to separate the GNAA from their continued campaign of trolling wikipedia. That said, I don't feel that an article on the GNAA per say violates WP:DENY any more than an article on Encyclopaedia Dramatica does. As long as the wikipedia vandalism isn't discussed in depth (which, admittedly, would be near impossible to source :P), I honestly don't think it would encourage more vandalism. Murdox ( talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation As I said last time around, if a new article with the same level of sourcing as the current draft was created I doubt anyone would try to delete it. As best as I can tell, there's a pretty strong argument that they meet WP:NGO. You don't have to like them, but let's try to be fair here. Qrsdogg ( talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation – I've been involved in so many of these that I can't really say anything that I haven't say before, but my faith (although not blind faith) in GNAA's notability hasn't been deterred. I've defended the validity of some of the sources questioned above to the best of my ability. I would also like to thank The_ed17 for the critique. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted. I'm afraid I've no wish to read the remarks next week about how the GNAA successfully trolled Wikipedia. And I've no appetite for seeing the many, recent, previous consensuses overruled by a brute-force attack on our deletion processes. When we discussed this two weeks ago, we shouldn't have to discuss it again.— S Marshall T/ C 01:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • You wish to keep the article deleted because it's more convenient? The GNAA weren't holding web parades when I wrote the Goatse Security article, and the media didn't find the article's creation newsworthy. I believe that your fears are unfounded. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 01:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Calling "consensus" into play as a reason to keep an article deleted is funny, considering that in this DRV there is significantly more support to allow the recreation of said article. nprice ( talk) 03:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I find it highly amusing that one who calls for the overturn and keep of almost everything here at DRV opposes the recreation based on purely personal, rather than valid (i.e. policy/guideline-based), reasons. Tarc ( talk) 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • So basically, because you don't want your feelings hurt, you deny them an article? LiteralKa ( talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • See: WP:ISDRAMABAD and WP:PI. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Gee, LiteralKa and Michaeldsuarez, thanks for putting all those words into my mouth. (And I'm also suitably grateful to Tarc for his helpful commentary.) I want to reassure you that replying to everyone who disagrees with you is sure to win the argument and get you the result you want. It will also endear you to the closer.— S Marshall T/ C 12:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Last I checked, asking a question (which has yet to be answered) is not "putting words into [somebody's] mouth". LiteralKa ( talk) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
            • What's your connection with the GNAA, LiteralKa?— S Marshall T/ C 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
              • this sort of questioning is not relevant to this discussion. riffic ( talk) 17:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
              • Does this have any relevance to the debate, or is it just to fuel your conspiracy? If I say "yes", I'm GNAA; if I say "no", I'm lying. LiteralKa ( talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • overturn/allow recreation Seems like there's enough sourcing. The trolling nature of the group isn't relevant. Sourcing is what matters and this has it. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation. The mistake this group made was to force so many discussion back when they were quite clearly non-notable that, naturally, this is held against them during any new request. Trouble is, based purely on the sources and policy, they appear to justify an article now. Not all of the sources are both reliable and in-depth, but there's enough here to justify retention under WP:GNG (and WP:ORG if that's felt to be relevant). Alzarian16 ( talk) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: most of the discussions I witnessed came from the 14 AfDs (or maybe even more), which obviously weren't "forced" by the group. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Some users has claimed that there were about 20 or 30 DRV's concerning the GNAA, so allow me to set the record stray: This is only the eleventh DRV. Of the ten prior DRV's, five of them were speedily closed, and only two of those can genuinely be called trolling. This is only the sixth DRV where a serious discussion is allowed to manifest itself. In comparison, there were 18 AfD's while the article existed, and twelve of them were speedily closed, trolling, or not taken seriously. AfD's #5, #7, #9 – #17 were indisputably started by trolls, and most of those should've been deleted on sight for disruption and ignored in future discussions. AfD #18 should've been AfD #9 or #10, but the troll nominations were kept for some reason and factored in the official count anyway. Truth of the matter is that there hasn't been 18 constructive, legitimate AfD's. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • reluctant Overturn the sources provided in response to my question look reliable and sufficient. It's not clear we really need two articles on this, and a merge between this and G. security should be carefully considered on the article talk pages. Hobit ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn passes WP:NGO, WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. this is enough for inclusion. Acostoss ( talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Looking at the article and its sourcing objectively as we all should be doing, it seems quite clear to me that it easily passes the base standard of notability that we require for such articles on Wikipedia. Unless you are planning on raising the standard for all such articles, I see no reason why this shouldn't be included. Arguments about trolling the internet, ect, are inconsequential to their notability as a subject for inclusion on Wikipedia. Silver seren C 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I see no reason why this article should not be allowed to exist. It passes all of the guidelines easily. Any deletion reason would have to be because one simply doesn't agree with the people mentioned in the article. I don't agree with Ted_bundy, but I'm not going to remove the article about him. - User:Kleinveld —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC). reply
    — Kleinveld ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep deleted and salt as per WP:DENY, also, it is policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, is not a bureaucracy, and is not a battleground.  Also, do whatever is needed administratively to end this continued disruption.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I don't see this as constituting disruption. An article or a DRV isn't being to cause Wikipedia to collapse. Forbidding further consensus-seeking processes such as DRV, on the other hand, would. How is this WP:SOAPBOX? The GNAA isn't being using Wikipedia as a means for recruitment or as a means to spread their gospel. Also, how can you say "Wikipedia[…] is not a bureaucracy" and "do whatever is needed administratively to end" what you perceive as disruption in the same argument? We reply on consensus, not the bureaucracy saying, "This is over forever. No more discussions. I don't want to listen to what the new consensus has to say." -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Even though respondent says, "I don't see this as disruption", to quote from a previous comment here, "The draft GNAA article reads, 'Its aim is to sow disruption on the Internet.'"  Eleven DRVs is evidence of continuing disruption.  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Not when spread over a period of 5 years. LiteralKa ( talk) 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
So merely because of the number of DRVs (of which only a fraction had any significance) GNAA can never have an article? LiteralKa 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The GNAA didn't create this DRV. This isn't disruption. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 17:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Eleven DRVs is evidence of continuing disruption.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
And then what would eighteen AfDs be? nprice ( talk) 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Significant coverage... not seeing it, sorry. I understand you disagree. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't a "disagree" thing, to quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." LiteralKa ( talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Please see File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg, right now you're only at a level of contradiction and your argument is weak until you put in the effort to counter my claims. riffic ( talk) 07:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • We have an article on the GSec trolling group, which is the main focus of the coverage. In those sources that meet rs, this is not mentioned with enough significance and enough focus to meet gng. It doesn't have to be the main topic, true, but it does have to be more than what we find here. Is that clearer now? Eusebeus ( talk) 09:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Moving up the hierarchy into Counterargument and Refutation... not seeing it, sorry. I understand you disagree. riffic ( talk) 04:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, allow creation, seems reliable enough, has coverage by lots of reliable sources, seems notable. -- 123 Hedgehog 456 : Create an account! 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted and put a three-month ban on any further DRVs on this article. IMO the sourcing is borderline, and I think raising DRVs again and again and again and again and again has moved well into "keep anoying everyone with insistent, repetitive demands until they get so sick of it that they finally give us what we want just to shut us up" territory. Reyk YO! 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • If you'd read the DRV, you'd see that there is a voluntary six-month delay between any further ones on this topic... Also, raising AfDs over and over again was how the article was originally deleted... Turnabout is fair play, no? nprice ( talk) 22:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I've been watching this deletion review for a while, waiting to have my say until I saw good rationale for keeping it deleted. I haven't seen any yet. As per many above, meets GNG and doesn't meet the guidelines for deletion. Meltingwax ( talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
===== Somewhat-arbitrary break =====
  • Comment - in the course of evaluating sourcing in the working draft, I have come to believe that the level of sourcing in the article is borderline at best. Of the 43 sources, there are seven primary sources, at least six I have questioned above, and one only mentions it in the context of its pre-2009 Wikipedia actions. Many of the others do not deal with the GNAA directly, instead bringing it up in the middle of other subjects. Of the four paragraphs that comprise the body of the article (not including Goatse Security), three are about completely minor incidents: a mistake in a CNN conspiracy theory segment that used a joke GNAA site as a source, the GNAA claimed to have screenshots of a planned Mac operating system (which were probably just created), and where the GNAA claimed to have been able to get another Mac operating system to work on an Intel processor, but was actually a hoax. The sources used for the latter two are GNAA "press releases" and internet tech news sites, which are reporting on "rumors" that ___ happened. It is rare for the GNAA to be mentioned in any of these. I'm strongly leaning to this not being notable. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm. So with people still !voting to overturn based on sufficient notability, are people just not evaluating the sources and just counting them? Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 04:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I think they're looking at how many problems were addressed in your source review and !voting based on that. LiteralKa ( talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Most haven't been addressed, and there is still the problem of including multiple references that don't even mention "GNAA", etc. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Move to mainspace and list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (19th nomination). The strong improvements in the draft since the 2006 version deleted at an AfD indicate that {{ db-repost}} would not be applicable. Because many editors believe the sourcing to be sufficient in establishing notability, and because others believe it to be insufficient, I recommend moving the userspace draft to mainspace and listing it at AfD. The depth of the sources, as well as their reliability, can be discussed at AfD. Cunard ( talk) 09:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • allow recreation I would like to note that in addition to feeling many people above and the copious sources point to notability, WP:DENY and other wikipedia process essays apply to PROCESS and non-mainspace. It is valid to say that a project or unused/outdated evidence page should be deleted, as once upon a time long-term abuse was modified to avoid creating a "vandals hall of fame". It is another thing altogether to avoid the inclusion of sourced material from main article space on the grounds the subjects have engaged in vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. As said many times, notability seems sufficiently established to me. I also disagree with merging the GNAA and Goatse Security articles, as they are different things to me. For instance, I am a member of Goatse Security, yet I do not consider myself part of the GNAA. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I think you're right, a merge with Goatse Security would be a bit of a stretch. Qrsdogg ( talk) 18:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow Recreation: Topic now meets the general notability guideline. The fact that it didn't for a long time shouldn't be held against it now that it does. Buddy431 ( talk) 03:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Sent to AFD I echo Ed's comments about the quality of the sources, but it is clear that the draft has change so much we can no longer keep this article deleted based on the 2006 AFD. Therefor allow mainspace recreation and immediately start an AFD (gonna happen anyway) so we can discuss the reliability of the sources there. Allow a single (inevitable) DRV on that AFD and consider all following DRV/AFDs on the GNAA disruption punisable by indef block until April 2012. Yoenit ( talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Under no circumstances should this be punted to AFD. This venue is perfectly capable of coming to a decision; sending off to AFD will generate more drama and additional re-argument of the same arguments, and is highly likely to end up as no-consensus, closed by an admin super!vote, and relisted here, most likely on April 1st. Stifle ( talk) 09:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to find out how the Cubs are gonna do this year. oh, who am I kidding, they'll have a somewhat decent season only to choke in September. riffic ( talk) 10:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, but at that point we will be arguing the close rather than the reliability of the sources, which will be a very different discussion. I understand your desire to avoid yet another AFD & DRV for this page, but following process is likely to produce the best results. Yoenit ( talk) 12:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Isn't that what got us into this whole mess? LiteralKa ( talk) 15:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Nowhere near meeting the criteria for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.186.89 ( talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011
  • delete and salt. 18 times nominated for deletion with frequent failures, so many drvs on top of that with maintain deletion. just salt it already. it is never going to be notable. that seems to be consensus. even if you make it a good article, it still won't reach notability, verifiable existence you'll get, notable no. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Consensus here seems to be going the other way. Would you as well like to move up the Hierarchy of Disagreement? riffic ( talk) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
He's definitely allowed to have an opinion, though. Stop badgering. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
You're right. I apologize and I'll refrain from commenting further. riffic ( talk) 05:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Not only does that go against WP:CCC, but I would argue that the sheer number of AfDs it survived established consensus the other way. LiteralKa ( talk) 11:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
considering you just denied any merit of having passed over 4 afd's as worth anything the other week. I find this argument a bit disingenuous. The difference you see... is that while the one you denied existed and died, the one you support may in the end just be a big ficticious troll and never in truth having existed beyond that... deny reality in support of nonsense, not the best wikipedian position, but an allowable one.-- Buridan ( talk) 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
So GNAA should be denied an article because there's a possibility that the article will turn into a "troll article"? (I think that's what you said, it's really hard to tell though, could you possibly rephrase it?) LiteralKa ( talk) 02:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I second that rephrasing request. I am not a native speaker and honestly I was unable to make sense of your two comments here. All the other people wrote understandable sentences. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 09:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
overturn easily meets GNG, i cant say it any better than the people above have. 70.72.193.104 ( talk) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
— 70.72.193.104 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Overturn There's no reason why GNAA shouldn't have an article when it pasess all of the appropriate guidelines and policies. 72.67.18.248 ( talk) 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
— 72.67.18.248 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Duncorn Hill ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The reason I am bringing this up here is not that I have particularly strong views about the article not being deleted, but that I think the closing admin's erroneous decision was not based on policy and has implications for other articles of this type. It is clear to me that there were policy-based reasons for deletion (e.g. it does not meet WP:GNG), but no policy-based reasons for retention.

My initial discussion with the closing admin can be found here, I feel it's not likely to yield a solution so bring this here for wider debate.

The only reason for not deleting I can discern is that the good-faith extensive searches to demonstrate failure to meet WP:GNG by debate particiapants were not deemed to be of sufficient rigour. I've not enoucntered this before in deletion closures - usually the fact the numerous contributors state they are unable to find significant coverage is enough, in the absnece of anyone demonstrating such coverage. Pontificalibus ( talk) 12:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

  • In DRV terms, I would simply endorse the "no consensus" outcome because it properly reflects the debate. But I think that what the nominator is asking is more of a question of how policy should be understood, so my opinion on that is in the collapse box below.— S Marshall T/ C 12:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Conversation between S Marshall and Pontificabilus

This is in the five pillars. Wikipedia's so focused on encyclopaedic content that sometimes we forget that we're more than just an encyclopaedia, but in fact we are more than that. We're also an almanac and, relevant to this, a gazetteer. The way I've always thought that WP:GNG and this "gazetteer" status interact, is that when it comes to geographical features, something like a map is a reliable source. What constitutes "significant coverage" is going to vary, but personally I would take the view that for UK geography, featuring on a 1:50,000 scale Ordnance Survey map means that it's probably more than just a minor geographical detail. If it doesn't appear on the 1:50,000 scale map but does feature on the 1:10,000, then I would say that further significant coverage would be necessary before an article was appropriate. This is intended to mean that individual streets or farms should not normally get their own article but I can see why a significant hill might well do.

I don't see how a "no consensus" outcome is correct, because when you strip out the arguments not based on policy, you're left with those claiming it fails to meet WP:GNG. Are we suggesting that subjects that don't meet WP:GNG (or don't appear to after a good faith search of sources) should have an article for some other reason? Because that's not my interpretation of WP:N (I recognise the debate on the notability of geographic features, but WP:N states that only WP:GNG applies as there is no more specific policy). I could create 10000 UK geographic feature articles tomorrow sourced only to single-word mentions in reports or maps, and if they all went the way of this AfD they'd all survive, even though none had "signifiacnt coverage about the subject addressing it directly in detail". Clearly that's against WP:N, so is WP:N faulty when it comes to certain subjects? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 14:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • For me, the key question you raise in this reply is: "Are we suggesting that subjects that don't meet WP:GNG ... should have an article for some other reason?" and my answer is, "yes". Broadly speaking, geographical locations are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, even when they are not strictly encyclopaedic topics, because of this gazetteer function that Wikipedia performs. (I would also say that dates and times are also suitable for inclusion even when not strictly encyclopaedic topics, because Wikipedia is an almanac as well as an encyclopaedia.)

    This broad statement of principles puts a fig leaf over the obscene morass of argument, opinion, precedent, exceptions and special cases that governs how geographical locations are treated in practice. Our definition of "geographical location" is bizarre and no lexicographer would recognise it. Various things that aren't even on Earth, such as individual asteroids, count as "geographical locations" for the purposes of the GNG, but most streets and farms do not. Some lakes, woods, or hills are suitable for inclusion, and others are not. Which ones get coverage in Wikipedia, at the level of individual cases, is down to the consensus on talk pages and AfDs.

    There is certainly inconsistency in our choices. This hill has been kept at AfD, but I'm quite sure that an exactly similar hill in Nigeria would have been deleted; an anomaly that exists because people have written an awful lot of books, articles and semi-informed opinion pieces about the British landscape. Personally, I suspect that the inconsistency and general weirdness of our treatment of geographical locations will never be converted into a systematic, thorough, and rigorous system. I'm sorry that it doesn't make sense, Pontificalibus, but I'm afraid that this is how it is when our encyclopaedia is largely written by monoglot British and American males who write about what they know.— S Marshall T/ C 10:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you, that answers my concerns about our inconsistency and lack of policy on the retention and deletion of articles on geographic features. I can see that attempts to form a policy have failed before, but I had thought the GNG might be helpful as a catch-all. It does seem though that a case-by-case tenuously-policy-based discussion is what we go with, which I don't have a problem with, but it's nice to know. I guess I will go with the advice at Wikipedia:Geographic_imbalance#Solving geographic imbalances.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 11:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: I've taken the liberty of collapsing all this discussion because it's not strictly within DRV's purview and the DRV closer does not need to consider it—though I think that all the admins who close DRVs are the kind of people who will open the collapse box and read it anyway!— S Marshall T/ C 12:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per both of SMarshall's rationales. An argument based on policy/guideline analysis which a nominator disagrees with should not be disregarded out of hand as "not based on policy." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'm surprised that Pontificalibus brought this matter to Deletion Review. We were discussing this matter on his talk page, & because he had told me to "take your time", I was: since he hadn't understood my earlier explanation, I was thinking on how to better explain myself. (I admit readily that my explanations aren't always as clear as I would like.) In any case if he disagreed with my closing, she/he was welcome to do further research & nominate this article for deletion -- or better, to merge it with another article so none of the information or sources used are lost.

    In a nutshell, & as S. Marshall points out above, for one to successfully show that a subject fails notability by WP:GNG -- & I hope by any measure -- one must perform due diligence. That is, find the appropriate reliable sources in which one would expect to read something about the subject & verify that it is mentioned there. (That is why I pointed Pontificalibus to the sources on her/his talk page: the publications of the English Place-Name Society, the Victoria County History (VCH), & the Ordinance Survey's historical maps of Great Britain -- all of which should be accessible through his local library.) Now it is difficult to find appropriate works for geographical landmarks in many parts of the world. I struggle with this problem when writing articles on Ethiopia where if suitable sources exist, in the vast majority of cases I either need to resort to buying them thru Amazon or Alibris (despite having the largest book store in North America located in my home town) or to using Interlibrary loan. However, concerning Europe -- & especially Great Britain -- there is an incredible wealth of historic, archeological, cultural, & scientific information about almost every square inch of the continent. Due diligence in this case would be to spend an hour or an afternoon in his local public library. Maybe I'm an unusual example of a Wikipedian, but I can think of far worse things to do with my time than to thumb through a copy of the VCH or John Leland's Itineraries. (FWIW, I've read both of these; but then, I may indeed be an unusual Wikipedian because I love to read obscure stuff.) And if Pontificalibus had shown interest in moving past my closing to performing the due diligence I had mentioned, I would have volunteered to help with the research: I happen to own copies of several of the Ordinance Surveys historical maps of Great Britain (which show information on reported archeological finds), although I bought all of them in 1984. Instead I can't help but wonder from all of Pontificalibus' actions if we have a case of WikiLawyering here; I'd rather extend good faith & hope that the two of us can together determine what importance Duncorn Hill truly has -- even if it the one unnotable place in all of Great Britain. -- llywrch ( talk) 16:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for endorsing your own decision. Your extensive commentaries on "due diligence" are what prompted me to bring this here, as it seems you are missing the point. No other closing admins at AfD insist on anything other than a "good-faith attempt to confirm that sources don't exist". Hundreds of AfDs are closed every month as delete for failing WP:N where the respondents are unable to significant coverage in reliable sources. If Llywrch had applied the above to all of these AfDs, I suspect none of them would have been closed as delete. You admit these sources you require analysis of are obscure - however most are available on Google books and so would have been encompassed in most people's searches. The fact is, no one demonstrated the subjects meets WP:GNG, so I am wondering by what other criteria articles about non-notable subjects are retained? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 17:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
IMHO, these other Admins ought to hold deletion nominations to the same high standard I held you. I'd be happier when I nominate articles for deletion, & the articles are deleted, had other Admins done the same in my case. I would then know that people were thinking about my nomination, & that I was doing the right thing, instead of left wondering if any article listed at AfD would end up deleted. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse a no-consensus close is just that: no consensus. Note that this is an article for a real location for which offline sources are likely to exist. It is entirely reasonable to expect that those arguing for deletion have demonstrated (not proven, for that's impossible) the likely lack of such sources. Notability is not an end in and of itself--it is a filter to keep random crap no one cares about (except the editor who created the article...) out of the encyclopedia. The pendulum has swung too far when people are demanding deletion of an article on an unquestionably real place just because they can't find enough online sources that discuss it in detail. Jclemens ( talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse There is , in fact, no policy saying that an item must be notable to have a Wikipedia article; what we actually do have as the relevant policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE , which says we distinguish what things are and are not worth articles, and a guideline, WP:N, giving some of the criteria for what we ordinarily consider sufficient reason for there to be an article. A view that we should include every hill on earth would be indiscriminate, & I don't think anyone is arguing that. a view that we should include some hills is in conformity with the policy. The position that verifiable information about a significant geographic feature is sufficient to over-ride WP:N is a firmly policy based argument, on the basis of the two most basic of the policies, one, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , and two, IAR. The only guide for how to interpret IAR is the community, considering the particular instance. The discussion about how evidence of a fort was not found there, is actually sensible, because a very large number of these geographic features are in fact fortifications of other artifacts. That this was worth investigating, & was investigated, is relevant and encyclopedic . DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • (ec)Overturn to Keep  (FYI: I !voted "Keep" in the Afd.)  There was not a single viable delete position, with the possible exception of one referencing an essay.  The few delete !votes that mentioned a guideline opined that if a hill does not have a hillfort, it does not satisfy WP:GNG.  As I noted at the AfD, "...the 'hillfort non-notability guideline' (WP:HNNG)...says that hills that don't have hillforts are not notable, for which no supporting examples have been provided."  A closing admin could have dismissed this line of reasoning as having no weight, as the concept of "non-notableness" does not exist in Wikipedia, instead there are multiple paths to notability/inclusion.  There were no other delete references to relevant guidelines.  There were no references to policy by any delete participant (unless you include the misunderstanding that WP:N is a policy).  Closing admin could also have dismissed several delete votes as drive-by's.  Drive-by votes cannot be reduced by the force of reason.  While some keep participants also joined in the WP:HNNG debate and could have had such positions given zero weight, one or more keep participants identified and supported at least one each of a policy, a guideline, a definition of notability, a relevant notability essay, and a fundamental principle.  For whatever reason, deletion votes included invective and hyperbole: "a whole lot of nothing", "blatant", "rocket science", "hard to believe" that we "actually need to spell out", "bunch of terribly bored kindergarteners", "plain laughable assertions", "spectacularly devoid", "creative use of ellipses", and (referring to a notability essay that was briefly a guideline) "it's an editor's opinion".  Also for whatever reason, again by deletion positions, there was disruption by commenting on other participants, including one redacted comment, "tying yourself in knots", "the line you misquote", "leave that spin out of it", and "insulting our intelligence".  Another participant brought a "facepalm" icon to the AfD, 20 hours after this comment about a participant in the AfD.  FYI, see also this response.  In the end, the closing admin has taken a variation of my challenge to a delete position, "What I don't see are metrics that separate 'just a hill' hills <WP:JAHG> from those that are more than 'just a hill', and where within the current guidelines and policies WP:JAHG should fit (i.e., WP:IAR, the definition of notability in WP:N, a new SNG)," and rehabilitated the entire delete position with an idea that no single delete position advanced.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Hindsight always has 20-20 vision. Had Pontificalibus mentioned in his nomination the fact P. had lived for 17 years near this hill & never knew it had a name, I might have closed this as a delete. Had you taken the time to go to the library & perform the due diligence I told P. was lacking -- & found materials which proved this hill was clearly notable -- then I might have closed this as a keep. Or, instead of simply citing part of an essay, had you explained why it made sense here -- viz., why a named geographical feature is notable -- I might have also closed this as a keep. (Then there is the issue no one seems to have raised: why not merge this article with another one? Articles listed at WP:AfD aren't a black/white, keep/delete issue.) I'm an old-school Wikipedian; I like making decisions on articles based on common sense assumptions like, "How likely is an average user going to look for this subject?" When it gets to arguing just what policy is & what the words mean, I get uncomfortable because I know the discussion will end with garbage. That is why I put the burden of proof on proving that the article needs to be deleted: we are talking about removing content from Wikipedia, & once removed it cannot be easily restored. That is why I'm kicking this back to the community: I want someone to actually research this subject & explain to the rest of us whether or not it deserves its own article, or even part of any article. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close - While the delete thinking regarding the application of WP:GNG to geographical landmarks is faulty, it does represent an IAR view such that no consensus was within the closers discretion. Being a named geographical landmark does not make it notable. However, logic dictates that you generally cannot have a named geographical landmark without their existing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Government paperwork is needed to create the existence of the geographical landmark and that paperwork alone should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. RS need not be in the article: The actual reliable sources need not be in the article or presented at AfD. The logic of their existence itself is sufficient to conclude that the named geographical landmark meets WP:GNG because of the strong likelihood of the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is particularly true in an area like Somerset England, which has been around since at least 845. An assertion that in the last 1,166 years people have not written enough information about Duncorn Hill to maintain a standalone Wikipedia article on the topic is absurd. No need to produce source material: The fact the numerous contributors state they are unable to find significant coverage is irrelevant because the AfD test in this situation is not the actual finding source material; rather, it is a likelihood of its existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Since the delete positions at the AfD all avoided addressing this likelihood in view of the past 1,166 years in a populated area, their position was very weak and essentially conceded the point to the keep positions. The no consensus close is in deference to the consensus feature of the AfD discussion rather than an overriding application of WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, delete - No offense, but the close rationale reads like "I don't know what to do here, so let's just split the baby and call it a day". We have a simple general notability guideline; either it satisfies GNG, or it does not. The estimable Duncorn Hill does not. Tarc ( talk) 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • IIRC, King Solomon was quite successful in that decision: the true mother was found because she was the one who truly loved the child. Given the choice, I'd rather split the baby than split hairs. (God grant me the wisdom to know when I have the choice.) -- llywrch ( talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • enodrse close Uzma's remarks and DGG's remarks seem strong especially in the light of one of the sources explicitly calling the hill an important landmark. No consensus seems reasonable here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per DGG. WP:N (and thus the GNG) is a guideline that is subject to common sense exceptions and setting aside by consensus. It is not a rigid policy to be enforced by admin deletion in the face of a real consensus to keep, or the lack of a true consensus to delete. Often a spurious lack of consensus can be generated by sock puppets or new users making arguments that ignore existing guidelines. But in other cases, such as this one, existing users made the reasoned argument that the guideline shouldn't apply in this case. Such arguments are fully within policy, WP:IAR, and should not be simply discounted by the closing admin. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The "guideline" is not WP:GNG, but WP:N, which can be satisfied without WP:GNG being satisfied.  What is missing here is a consensus that explains the ten thousand geography articles in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse finding of no consensus- I argued to delete this article on the grounds that the sourcing was weak and actually seemed to be demonstrating the non-notability of the hill. But others argued that, because Wikipedia incorporates the functions of a gazetteer, it should include named landmarks and that the general notability guideline doesn't strictly apply to them. I personally mistrust this philosophy because it promotes the creation of useless, contentless microstubs with no prospects of ever being expanded to something informative. But I can't see that this close was so out of line that it needs to be reversed. I think 'no consensus' is a fair reading of the debate, though 'delete' would have been acceptable also. I would however urge the closing admin in future to pay more attention to arguments that discuss and analyze the actual sources. Reyk YO! 02:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, because "no consensus" always allows for relisting with a stronger rationale at a later date, and suggest early close, because there's no way this is going to be deleted as a result of this debate, and the questions discussed above about the inherent notability or lack thereof of places would best be discussed either in a new AfD or in a broader guideline debate. Chick Bowen 23:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose early close  There is plenty to digest here and either more opinions or several more days with no responses are appropriate.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

First, I tried to work it out with the admin who deleted the page, but he suggested that I request a deletion review. I am requesting undeletion of the Tricentis article. The reasons in support of this request are the following:

  • Tricentis is notable as evidenced by Gartner’s Magic Quadrant 2011.
  • the article only provides basic information on Tricentis and does not use any promotional language or content
  • the topic is no more specialized than any other software automation company already listed on Wikipedia
  • the alleged COI on its own is not a reason for speedy deletion

Jkoprax ( talk) 09:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

done. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I think an AFD on this would be reasonable, though I have my doubts. I'm not sure Gartner's is sufficiently independent to qualify as a reliable source. Google News Search turns up a half-dozen entries in German, but most are just reprints of press releases. The only actual article I found is this one in WirtschaftsBlatt. Chick Bowen 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Personally I think that this should be an article for the German Wikipedia. Phearson ( talk) 21:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I broadly agree with Chick Bowen, and I think it's part of DRV's function to provide FairProcess on request from a good faith editor. List at AfD if the nominator insists, though it might well not survive.— S Marshall T/ C 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • List at AfD - Founded in 1997 and now has about 100 employees. It is possible that reliable sources wrote about TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting. Likely, that info is in Vienna, Austria and won't be revealed in an AfD (because it is in German and most English Wikipedians only read English. Also, a software quality assurance company doesn't seem the type to generate news coverage. However, Jkoprax seems a good faith editor and the deleted article wasn't too promoty. A 7 day AfD might bring forth some reliable sources, so list at AfD. Jkoprax, you may want to look over WP:GNG before the AfD. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • After reading your feedback and checking the GNG, I would have to agree with you that there are not enough independent and reliable sources at the moment to justify the English stand-alone article. Is there any way to put the article on hold? If not, does getting deleted now make it harder to rewrite and post the article at a later point? I know Tricentis is expanding to the USA and there might be enough information available in English in 6 months or so to justify an article. But in the meantime I will probably try to post the article in German since there are a number of sources ranging from Wirtschaftsblatt to der Standard to Computerwelt and Monitor. Thank you for your commentary – it has been very helpful. Jkoprax ( talk) 10:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy to Jkoprax in accordance with his reasonable request. Also, Jkoprax, if you write the article in German, then provided there are reliable sources, it will be in order to translate it into English. You can have an English-language article with German-language sources (and I have personally created several such).— S Marshall T/ C 13:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_16&oldid=1088118947"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 March 15
2011 March 17 >

16 March 2011

  • Gay Nigger Association of America – overturn. Apologies, in advance, for my normal long rationale - on the plus side, DRV's format means it'll be in tiny type! Disclaimer: I was tangentally involved in having this listed here; that is, I debated the pro's and cons of doing so on LiteralKa's talkpage. This is not because I have any particular opinions on the merits of the article or the subject, but rather because I felt that the last DRV lacked a "full" close. Hopefully my rather extended rationale here means we can, to use a turn of phrase, take the twitching body of this perpetual debate and finally stake it to death. I hear garlic works, too, but my spice cabinet is all out of it. In the interests of maintaing neutrality and avoiding the appearance of controversy (when the entire point of this is to end the controversy) I have stayed away from all discussions relating to this DRV, including the DRV itself, since the review proposal was listed a week ago. Hopefully this is sufficient.

The GNAA and Wikipedia have a controversial and difficult history. The nature of their activities, their focus on "trolling" (which includes both trolling the project and its users, and trolling the IRC channels} makes it understandably difficult for a lot of users to approach the subject of their inclusion with anything approaching rationality, emotional concerns overriding objectivity.

Quite frankly, I'm suprised by the relative uniformity of the debate - new users, old users, deletionists and inclusionists, the vast majority of the contributors to this discussion want the last decision overturned. Consensus is clear; that the article draft listed should be put in place of the current redlink, and prior discussions voided. A few points do, however, need to be cleared up. One legitimate concern is that while many sources show some semblance of notability, a lot are unreliable. This is not something that is for DRV or AfD; if there is consensus that the body passes WP:ORG, any debates over content are for the talkpage, as they do not relate to deletion. Another legitimate, and more pressing concern, is that the article (once restored) can be again listed at AfD. From a practical point of view, this is an issue, because it means the cycle just continues over and over again. Speaking theoretically (and this is just my opinion), consensus can change. notability, however, is not temporary; unless a user can pull up new evidence as to why the arguments in favour of overturning are invalid, I feel (again, personal opinion) that immediately AfDing it would be inappropriate.

There have also been some illegitimate arguments. Applying WP:DENY is the prominent one; we cannot apply that to article content. The moment we start discriminating amongst content not for its objective value but for the subject's relation to the community, our goal of having a neutral encyclopedia with certain standards is sunk. We begin to believe that notability is based not on how verifiable a subject is but how nice they are to us. Similarly, the idea that the GNAA should somehow be held to a higher standard because of their history with us is ludicrous. WP:N does not exist to define what is and is not important. It exists to define what is and is not verifiable. It is for this reason that arguments such as "verifiable existence you'll get, notable no" are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of policy and the reasons behind policy.

Still, the tone of the debate has generally been good. We've had argument, corollary, counter-argument, rebuttal, a decent analysis of the reliability of the sources. We've had new users and old users and people from all over the philosophical spectrum showing exactly what makes Wikipedia a fantastic place; the ability of users to set aside differences in ideology, set aside differences in experience, set aside emotional and personal concerns, come together and make a decision. Thank you, all of you, for contributing to what has been both the most spirited and civil debate I've seen since becoming an administrator. Consensus is to overturn; quibbles about individual bits of content can be sent to the talkpage, and hatemail to the usual address. – Ironholds ( talk) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gay Nigger Association of America ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
I am not and have never been associated with the GNAA, but I have seen this issue come up on IRC and have been following it as best I can. I have not been canvassed regarding this issue.

The GNAA article appears to have been given short shrift in its last full-length DRV; most commentors weighed in with statements about whether or not they liked the GNAA, rather than their opinions on the article's improved sourcing. Similarly, the last two DRV closes have mostly been based on the disruption of LiteralKa starting multiple DRVs and/or the commentors' dislike of the issue.

Nevertheless, the article in its current draft form does show potential beyond what mere "GNAA is annoying" can counteract, and in an effort to put this issue to rest (at least for the near future) to everyone's satisfaction, I have spoken to LiteralKa ( talk · contribs). S/he has agreed that the results of this DRV will be binding upon him/her for six months from its close. There is no quid-pro-quo expectation here; however, I very strongly urge commentors this time around to focus their arguments on whether the article meets our criteria for inclusion rather than whether the GNAA may or may not have worn out its welcome here. My hope is that this DRV discussion can be based on the merits of the article, especially its sourcing (in the context of internet phenomena, I would argue that places like Boing Boing and Gizmodo are certainly reliable) and notability, rather than on whether the GNAA is disliked by the WP community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from the closer of the last DRV. I don't have an opinion on this nomination, but to the admin who closes this, make sure your privacy is pretty tight; I had a couple IPs make a serious attempt at finding my personal information, including my real name and address. It has since been oversighted, but I don't want to see that happen to anyone else. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 18:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from a participant to the last DRV: I voiced my opinion in favour of restoring the article, and just yesterday a friend of mine found his long lost cat who had been missing for weeks. I'd certainly want to see that happen to others. Guaranteed true story. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 10:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • A bit disrespectful to downplay concerns for one's personal privacy. Believe it or not, there are people out there who do that kind of crap. Research this guy, for instance. Killiondude ( talk) 17:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn: I admittedly don't know how this all works but having been sort of following this drama on irc as well I see no reason at all for this article not to exist. It's got far more factual information backed up by reliable sources than the typical article about pokemon or whatever, and wikipedia definitely has no shortage of that sort of content. 184.247.156.97 ( talk) 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn It's time to be sensible about this. By now, even the campaign to keep it out of Wikipedia is an element of notability -- see ref. 16 in the article. WP:OSTRICH, an essay that needs more careful attention. Can be otherwise stated as a combination of NOT CENSORED, and the advisability of not acting like a bunch of priggish fools. (this is not a personal attack with respect to anything that might be said here; it is an attack on a certain attitude.) DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, with a bit of history. It is not because "GNAA is disliked by the WP community" that we have historically held them to a higher standard. That is, it is not their general trollishness that is the chief cause of concern, but their very long-term history of specifically trolling our criteria of inclusion, which, as DGG concedes just above and is stated in the lead paragraph of the draft article, is one of the principal reasons for their notability. I have never bought this and I never will; no matter how notable WP itself may have become by now, publicly contesting our notability standards cannot itself confer notability. Chick Bowen 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
As a sidenote, If they protest WP:N publically enough to be notable, then actually they would. I'm not sure that's the case, but we do accept other memes and internet phenomenon for inclusion on the basis of widespread *internet* notability even if there haven't been non-net third-party sources. like them or not, some of these groups are big enough that they are possible of conferring notability if they talk about them as a third party. HominidMachinae ( talk) 08:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • This is, by far, not "one of the principal reasons for their notability", the two Apple trolls, among other things, are. The only mention of Wikipedia is a single sentence. LiteralKa ( talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • CommentAllow Recreation Is there a concise list of references establishing WP:ORG for this group as distinct from the notability of Goatse Security? I looked at a lot of the references, but most were establishing the notability of specific actions attributed to the group, but did not really establish the notability of the group itself. A separate list of any that do would be helpful. Monty845 ( talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
See the Apple trolls for one such example.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
See ref #s 7, 8, 16, 17, 20, and 26 (this is excluding GNAA's "activities")
LiteralKa ( talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
There seems to be enough there to justify notability, so I'll go with overturn, specifically on the basis of refs #16, #17 and #20. I'm not really sure the others really establish the notability for a variety of reasons, but those 3 are enough. Monty845 ( talk) 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn This seems to pass both parts of WP:NGO. In addition there seems to be enough sources to pass the WP:GNG. We should not hold this article to a stricter unwritten slandered because they disrupt wikipedia. -- Guerillero | My Talk 23:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn 1) GNAA no longer meets any of the criteria for deletion, or even is close to meeting them. 2) GNAA easily passes WP:GNG and clearly demonstrates notability. 3) When compared with the revision that was deleted five years ago, the working draft is almost completely unrecognizable. All of the old article's problems have been addressed. LiteralKa ( talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn In previous DrVs, admins claimed that there was "consensus" that the article should remain deleted. While this may be true, there was no consensus as to *WHY* it should remain deleted. As active as the DrVs were, there were many users and just as many reasons why they didn't want the article included in Wikipedia. Were there a solid, valid reason, most of the users would have agreed upon it. The only consensus in the DrVs has been that numerous users are grasping at straws for reasons rather than admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The GNAA draft is far more sound than many articles that have survived multiple VfDs for the same "reasons" (such as Rob Levin). We must hold all articles to the same standard, regardless of our personal opinions. Personally, I think the appropriate action would be to recreate the GNAA article, and add a "Goatse Security" section which would be merged in. nprice ( talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • One other topic of note, if the ORIGINAL article really did have issues, it wouldn't've taken 20 VfDs to delete, and it's pretty much universally accepted that the new draft is much better. nprice ( talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse by applying WP:DENY to real life. GNAA exists for the "purpose" of shock value: whether someone wants to change the electronic bits within our database or manipulate life and coverage, vandalism is vandalism, and should be rewarded appropriately. Jclemens ( talk) 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Did you just compare a well-sourced article to vandalism? I'm hurt. I have dedicated a significant amount of time to the article in question, and if all it amounts to is vandalism, it's a waste. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Breaching AT&T's security is far beyond simply vandalizing or manipulating Wikipedia. The GNAA doesn't require an article in order to be notable. A Wikipedia article doesn't create notability for the subject. Denying the GNAA an article isn't going to make them lose notability and fade away. The article has been deleted for over four years, but that hasn't diminished the GNAA's reputation. Keeping the article deleted per WP:DENY only creates a false sense of security and perhaps a false sense of victory as well. How will a Wikipedia article create "shock value" anyway? Are concern that someone would search "gay niggers" on Google and find an encyclopedia article instead the porn and penises one might expect? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 01:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Several points to bring up, the first being that it's more than just a bit of a stretch to apply WP:DENY to real life. I find it rather disturbing that an admin would even try to make that claim. Second, even under your logic, WP:DENY doesn't apply. WP:DENY applies to vandals, not trolls. (note the number of times the word 'troll' is mentioned, etc.) LiteralKa ( talk) 01:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close. Four DRVs in a month is just plain ridiculous. T. Canens ( talk) 05:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    Are you saying Speedy close Overturn? Because that seems to be what the consensus is (to the extent that it is clear yet). I think this is a serious DRV and shouldn't be discounted simply because past ones did not make as strong a case. Monty845 ( talk) 05:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Could you cite a policy, guideline, essay, etc. as to why you think GNAA does not qualify for an article? LiteralKa ( talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Close this DRV and salt all Gay Nigger Association of America XfDs for three months from the close of this DRV per WP:DENY - The draft GNAA article reads, "Its aim is to sow disruption on the Internet. Lih has noted on the groups activities within Wikipedia, claiming that by adhering to every rule, they can use the system against itself." Four DRVs in a month. How is that withing the rules and if it is (seems to be since the admins are allowing it), the rules need to be changed. What about the rules Wikipedia is not a battleground - Wikipedia is not a place to carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice or hatred - and Wikipedia is not an anarchy - Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. Someone needs to close this DRV. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Could you cite a policy, guideline, essay, etc. as to why you think GNAA does not qualify for an article? LiteralKa ( talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • That would be inconsistent with WP:DENY. I get it. DRV allows requests to consider new information. The GNAA draft has (or maybe it hasn't - who knows! Lets discuss.) received new information four times in the last month and now we are on the fourth DRV in a month. My guess is that GNAA is going to keep posting DRVs to keep promoting its offensive name in Wikipedia through XfDs (and laughing all the way to the Internet disruption bank) without concerned about meeting article policy. The fact this DRV was not closed before I got here and has long continued after my post -- even though GNAA is up to 17 or 20 XfDs (or more) -- shows that Wikipedia is not ready to handle this and DRV's lack of clear rules on rapid, successive DRV nominations can be used against itself to sow disruption on Wikipedia. Since the degree to which GNAA has been noticed by independent sources is less than the amount of disruption the topic continues to cause in Wikipedia, speedy close this DRV and salt all Gay Nigger Association of America XfDs for three months from the close of this DRV per WP:DENY. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • If you had actually read the nomination, you would have seen that the DRV renomination issue has been addressed. (And there's only been about 10 real AfDs and DRVs combined, sans trolls and speedy close/keep and snowballs.) LiteralKa ( talk) 21:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • The above DRV nomination inadaquately addressed the rapid DRV renominations and failed to address cumulative disruption of Wikipedia over this topic. Allowing an article for this topic will increase the amount of disruption this topic will cause in Wikipedia and no one at this DRV has adaquately rebutted that. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 04:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
            • I don't follow your reasoning here. If the AFD's and DRV's about the GNAA are disrupting Wikipedia, wouldn't giving them an article actually stop the disruption? Besides, we have articles on some GNAA related topics, such as Goatse Security and weev–I don't think that the project has really been disrupted by their presence so I don't see why this article would be any different. Of all the problems that are facing Wikipedia, having an article with a possibly offensive title is a pretty minor issue, IMHO. Qrsdogg ( talk) 04:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
            • The Encyclopedia Dramatica article isn't causing disruption. Here's a few things to keep in mind about "offensive titles": Gay niggers is a redirect that'll appear on the auto-complete drop-down list, Patriotic Nigras has an article, and people are more likely to be offended by the nude photos on several articles or File:Virgin_Killer.jpg. WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not Wikipedia's duty to prevent people from being offended by what they see or find. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 11:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Qrsdogg: I think you are missing the point, GNAA is here to create disruption (as per the draft article).  Since the goal is disruption, having an article has nothing to do with this discussion.  If you look at why we had so many AfDs, someone by the name of GNAA was demanding that the article be deleted.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I think that you, sir, are missing the point. Having an article is this discussion. The GNAA's intentions play no role in this DRV, whether or not the draft meets the criteria for deletion does. LiteralKa ( talk) 00:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
29 comments by one participant is evidence of WP:THELASTWORD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
And 18 AfDs isn't? How dare you accuse me of something like that. The vast majority of my edits to this page have been in response to the "source review". Please do your homework before accusing me of that ever again. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm not really sure that they are here just to create disruption. I can't vouch for everything they've ever done on-wiki (I've only been here for a year or so) but from what I've seen they're simply trying to get us to apply our existing notability policies to their group. Sure there have been a lot of discussions about their article, but only a few of them were actually started by members of the group, IIRC. Qrsdogg ( talk) 01:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted and deny all requests with prejudice for the next three months. This endeavour to keep relisting until it gets undeleted is nothing other than an argument by attrition. Stifle ( talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Could you cite a policy, guideline, essay, etc. as to why you think GNAA does not qualify for an article? LiteralKa ( talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • The previous consensus should be quite enough for now. Stifle ( talk) 13:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Citing a policy would help your argument be more than just "as per consensus". (See: WP:CCC for why merely citing consensus is not a very strong argument.) LiteralKa ( talk) 13:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • I also would like to point out that genuine efforts have been made to improve the article, with good results, in between each of the (serious) DRVs. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Please note that, as I stated above, LiteralKa has agreed to abide by the result of this DRV for at least six months; ending this DRV early for the purpose of cutting off further nominations is therefore redundant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 13:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Comment People insisting that this not be nominated for another three months leads me to believe that they didn't even read the nomination. LiteralKa ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • They probably didn't. I'm attempting to speak from an objective position here, but when something gets nominated ~30 times, you're bound to receive "enough already" !votes. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Which the closing admin would be smart to ignore. LiteralKa ( talk) 16:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Reminds me of how the original article was deleted. nprice ( talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Create- Simple, long-ingrown bias has prevented what should have been created by now as it is a simple WP:GNG pass. Funny how people still hotly contest this, while the project still has an article about a unremarkable bump in the landscape. Love them priorities. Tarc ( talk) 16:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • question I've looked over the sources and few seem to actually mention this group by name and those that do are largely in passing. Now there are a lot of sources and I only hit the first 10 or so. But unless the person starting this DrV can list 3-4 that they think best meet WP:N, I don't see a way to fairly evaluate this without putting in massive time. So can the nom please point to those 3 or 4 best sources? Hobit ( talk) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Err, if you accept that, why are you arguing for two separate articles? NW ( Talk) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not arguing for two separate articles. There isn't any reason why the GNAA and Goatse Security can't be discussed in the same article. The problem is that it's hard to discuss the GNAA in detail within the Goatse Security article, but it would be easy to have a GNAA article with sections discussing Goatse Security in detail. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: the webwereld.nl article refers to the group as both GNAA and NGAA. riffic ( talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment*I think a GNAA article that contained in-depth discussion on the Goatse Security group would be the best possible solution, *especially* considering weev's statements in the press. Murdox ( talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    — Murdox ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment removed. lifebaka ++ 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 75.54.139.45 ( talk) 17:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation based on my previous DRV rationale, draft meets wp:gng riffic ( talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for much in this debate, but I personally feel that the current draft is wiki-worthy. While there are a few iffy sources in there, they are also backed up by strong, legitimate sources demonstrating notability from global media. In an ideal world, wikipedia's deletion policy would work purely based on the quality and notability of the article in question. However, as many experienced wikipedians can testify to, it's extremely hard to separate the GNAA from their continued campaign of trolling wikipedia. That said, I don't feel that an article on the GNAA per say violates WP:DENY any more than an article on Encyclopaedia Dramatica does. As long as the wikipedia vandalism isn't discussed in depth (which, admittedly, would be near impossible to source :P), I honestly don't think it would encourage more vandalism. Murdox ( talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation As I said last time around, if a new article with the same level of sourcing as the current draft was created I doubt anyone would try to delete it. As best as I can tell, there's a pretty strong argument that they meet WP:NGO. You don't have to like them, but let's try to be fair here. Qrsdogg ( talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation – I've been involved in so many of these that I can't really say anything that I haven't say before, but my faith (although not blind faith) in GNAA's notability hasn't been deterred. I've defended the validity of some of the sources questioned above to the best of my ability. I would also like to thank The_ed17 for the critique. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted. I'm afraid I've no wish to read the remarks next week about how the GNAA successfully trolled Wikipedia. And I've no appetite for seeing the many, recent, previous consensuses overruled by a brute-force attack on our deletion processes. When we discussed this two weeks ago, we shouldn't have to discuss it again.— S Marshall T/ C 01:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • You wish to keep the article deleted because it's more convenient? The GNAA weren't holding web parades when I wrote the Goatse Security article, and the media didn't find the article's creation newsworthy. I believe that your fears are unfounded. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 01:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Calling "consensus" into play as a reason to keep an article deleted is funny, considering that in this DRV there is significantly more support to allow the recreation of said article. nprice ( talk) 03:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I find it highly amusing that one who calls for the overturn and keep of almost everything here at DRV opposes the recreation based on purely personal, rather than valid (i.e. policy/guideline-based), reasons. Tarc ( talk) 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • So basically, because you don't want your feelings hurt, you deny them an article? LiteralKa ( talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • See: WP:ISDRAMABAD and WP:PI. LiteralKa ( talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Gee, LiteralKa and Michaeldsuarez, thanks for putting all those words into my mouth. (And I'm also suitably grateful to Tarc for his helpful commentary.) I want to reassure you that replying to everyone who disagrees with you is sure to win the argument and get you the result you want. It will also endear you to the closer.— S Marshall T/ C 12:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Last I checked, asking a question (which has yet to be answered) is not "putting words into [somebody's] mouth". LiteralKa ( talk) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
            • What's your connection with the GNAA, LiteralKa?— S Marshall T/ C 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
              • this sort of questioning is not relevant to this discussion. riffic ( talk) 17:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
              • Does this have any relevance to the debate, or is it just to fuel your conspiracy? If I say "yes", I'm GNAA; if I say "no", I'm lying. LiteralKa ( talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • overturn/allow recreation Seems like there's enough sourcing. The trolling nature of the group isn't relevant. Sourcing is what matters and this has it. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation. The mistake this group made was to force so many discussion back when they were quite clearly non-notable that, naturally, this is held against them during any new request. Trouble is, based purely on the sources and policy, they appear to justify an article now. Not all of the sources are both reliable and in-depth, but there's enough here to justify retention under WP:GNG (and WP:ORG if that's felt to be relevant). Alzarian16 ( talk) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: most of the discussions I witnessed came from the 14 AfDs (or maybe even more), which obviously weren't "forced" by the group. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Some users has claimed that there were about 20 or 30 DRV's concerning the GNAA, so allow me to set the record stray: This is only the eleventh DRV. Of the ten prior DRV's, five of them were speedily closed, and only two of those can genuinely be called trolling. This is only the sixth DRV where a serious discussion is allowed to manifest itself. In comparison, there were 18 AfD's while the article existed, and twelve of them were speedily closed, trolling, or not taken seriously. AfD's #5, #7, #9 – #17 were indisputably started by trolls, and most of those should've been deleted on sight for disruption and ignored in future discussions. AfD #18 should've been AfD #9 or #10, but the troll nominations were kept for some reason and factored in the official count anyway. Truth of the matter is that there hasn't been 18 constructive, legitimate AfD's. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • reluctant Overturn the sources provided in response to my question look reliable and sufficient. It's not clear we really need two articles on this, and a merge between this and G. security should be carefully considered on the article talk pages. Hobit ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn passes WP:NGO, WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. this is enough for inclusion. Acostoss ( talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Looking at the article and its sourcing objectively as we all should be doing, it seems quite clear to me that it easily passes the base standard of notability that we require for such articles on Wikipedia. Unless you are planning on raising the standard for all such articles, I see no reason why this shouldn't be included. Arguments about trolling the internet, ect, are inconsequential to their notability as a subject for inclusion on Wikipedia. Silver seren C 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I see no reason why this article should not be allowed to exist. It passes all of the guidelines easily. Any deletion reason would have to be because one simply doesn't agree with the people mentioned in the article. I don't agree with Ted_bundy, but I'm not going to remove the article about him. - User:Kleinveld —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC). reply
    — Kleinveld ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep deleted and salt as per WP:DENY, also, it is policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, is not a bureaucracy, and is not a battleground.  Also, do whatever is needed administratively to end this continued disruption.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I don't see this as constituting disruption. An article or a DRV isn't being to cause Wikipedia to collapse. Forbidding further consensus-seeking processes such as DRV, on the other hand, would. How is this WP:SOAPBOX? The GNAA isn't being using Wikipedia as a means for recruitment or as a means to spread their gospel. Also, how can you say "Wikipedia[…] is not a bureaucracy" and "do whatever is needed administratively to end" what you perceive as disruption in the same argument? We reply on consensus, not the bureaucracy saying, "This is over forever. No more discussions. I don't want to listen to what the new consensus has to say." -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Even though respondent says, "I don't see this as disruption", to quote from a previous comment here, "The draft GNAA article reads, 'Its aim is to sow disruption on the Internet.'"  Eleven DRVs is evidence of continuing disruption.  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Not when spread over a period of 5 years. LiteralKa ( talk) 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
So merely because of the number of DRVs (of which only a fraction had any significance) GNAA can never have an article? LiteralKa 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The GNAA didn't create this DRV. This isn't disruption. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 17:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Eleven DRVs is evidence of continuing disruption.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
And then what would eighteen AfDs be? nprice ( talk) 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Significant coverage... not seeing it, sorry. I understand you disagree. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't a "disagree" thing, to quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." LiteralKa ( talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Please see File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg, right now you're only at a level of contradiction and your argument is weak until you put in the effort to counter my claims. riffic ( talk) 07:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • We have an article on the GSec trolling group, which is the main focus of the coverage. In those sources that meet rs, this is not mentioned with enough significance and enough focus to meet gng. It doesn't have to be the main topic, true, but it does have to be more than what we find here. Is that clearer now? Eusebeus ( talk) 09:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Moving up the hierarchy into Counterargument and Refutation... not seeing it, sorry. I understand you disagree. riffic ( talk) 04:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, allow creation, seems reliable enough, has coverage by lots of reliable sources, seems notable. -- 123 Hedgehog 456 : Create an account! 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted and put a three-month ban on any further DRVs on this article. IMO the sourcing is borderline, and I think raising DRVs again and again and again and again and again has moved well into "keep anoying everyone with insistent, repetitive demands until they get so sick of it that they finally give us what we want just to shut us up" territory. Reyk YO! 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • If you'd read the DRV, you'd see that there is a voluntary six-month delay between any further ones on this topic... Also, raising AfDs over and over again was how the article was originally deleted... Turnabout is fair play, no? nprice ( talk) 22:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I've been watching this deletion review for a while, waiting to have my say until I saw good rationale for keeping it deleted. I haven't seen any yet. As per many above, meets GNG and doesn't meet the guidelines for deletion. Meltingwax ( talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
===== Somewhat-arbitrary break =====
  • Comment - in the course of evaluating sourcing in the working draft, I have come to believe that the level of sourcing in the article is borderline at best. Of the 43 sources, there are seven primary sources, at least six I have questioned above, and one only mentions it in the context of its pre-2009 Wikipedia actions. Many of the others do not deal with the GNAA directly, instead bringing it up in the middle of other subjects. Of the four paragraphs that comprise the body of the article (not including Goatse Security), three are about completely minor incidents: a mistake in a CNN conspiracy theory segment that used a joke GNAA site as a source, the GNAA claimed to have screenshots of a planned Mac operating system (which were probably just created), and where the GNAA claimed to have been able to get another Mac operating system to work on an Intel processor, but was actually a hoax. The sources used for the latter two are GNAA "press releases" and internet tech news sites, which are reporting on "rumors" that ___ happened. It is rare for the GNAA to be mentioned in any of these. I'm strongly leaning to this not being notable. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm. So with people still !voting to overturn based on sufficient notability, are people just not evaluating the sources and just counting them? Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 04:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I think they're looking at how many problems were addressed in your source review and !voting based on that. LiteralKa ( talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Most haven't been addressed, and there is still the problem of including multiple references that don't even mention "GNAA", etc. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Move to mainspace and list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (19th nomination). The strong improvements in the draft since the 2006 version deleted at an AfD indicate that {{ db-repost}} would not be applicable. Because many editors believe the sourcing to be sufficient in establishing notability, and because others believe it to be insufficient, I recommend moving the userspace draft to mainspace and listing it at AfD. The depth of the sources, as well as their reliability, can be discussed at AfD. Cunard ( talk) 09:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • allow recreation I would like to note that in addition to feeling many people above and the copious sources point to notability, WP:DENY and other wikipedia process essays apply to PROCESS and non-mainspace. It is valid to say that a project or unused/outdated evidence page should be deleted, as once upon a time long-term abuse was modified to avoid creating a "vandals hall of fame". It is another thing altogether to avoid the inclusion of sourced material from main article space on the grounds the subjects have engaged in vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. As said many times, notability seems sufficiently established to me. I also disagree with merging the GNAA and Goatse Security articles, as they are different things to me. For instance, I am a member of Goatse Security, yet I do not consider myself part of the GNAA. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I think you're right, a merge with Goatse Security would be a bit of a stretch. Qrsdogg ( talk) 18:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Allow Recreation: Topic now meets the general notability guideline. The fact that it didn't for a long time shouldn't be held against it now that it does. Buddy431 ( talk) 03:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Sent to AFD I echo Ed's comments about the quality of the sources, but it is clear that the draft has change so much we can no longer keep this article deleted based on the 2006 AFD. Therefor allow mainspace recreation and immediately start an AFD (gonna happen anyway) so we can discuss the reliability of the sources there. Allow a single (inevitable) DRV on that AFD and consider all following DRV/AFDs on the GNAA disruption punisable by indef block until April 2012. Yoenit ( talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Under no circumstances should this be punted to AFD. This venue is perfectly capable of coming to a decision; sending off to AFD will generate more drama and additional re-argument of the same arguments, and is highly likely to end up as no-consensus, closed by an admin super!vote, and relisted here, most likely on April 1st. Stifle ( talk) 09:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to find out how the Cubs are gonna do this year. oh, who am I kidding, they'll have a somewhat decent season only to choke in September. riffic ( talk) 10:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, but at that point we will be arguing the close rather than the reliability of the sources, which will be a very different discussion. I understand your desire to avoid yet another AFD & DRV for this page, but following process is likely to produce the best results. Yoenit ( talk) 12:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Isn't that what got us into this whole mess? LiteralKa ( talk) 15:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Nowhere near meeting the criteria for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.186.89 ( talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011
  • delete and salt. 18 times nominated for deletion with frequent failures, so many drvs on top of that with maintain deletion. just salt it already. it is never going to be notable. that seems to be consensus. even if you make it a good article, it still won't reach notability, verifiable existence you'll get, notable no. -- Buridan ( talk) 03:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Consensus here seems to be going the other way. Would you as well like to move up the Hierarchy of Disagreement? riffic ( talk) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
He's definitely allowed to have an opinion, though. Stop badgering. Ed  [talk] [majestic titan] 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
You're right. I apologize and I'll refrain from commenting further. riffic ( talk) 05:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Not only does that go against WP:CCC, but I would argue that the sheer number of AfDs it survived established consensus the other way. LiteralKa ( talk) 11:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
considering you just denied any merit of having passed over 4 afd's as worth anything the other week. I find this argument a bit disingenuous. The difference you see... is that while the one you denied existed and died, the one you support may in the end just be a big ficticious troll and never in truth having existed beyond that... deny reality in support of nonsense, not the best wikipedian position, but an allowable one.-- Buridan ( talk) 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
So GNAA should be denied an article because there's a possibility that the article will turn into a "troll article"? (I think that's what you said, it's really hard to tell though, could you possibly rephrase it?) LiteralKa ( talk) 02:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I second that rephrasing request. I am not a native speaker and honestly I was unable to make sense of your two comments here. All the other people wrote understandable sentences. Sam Hocevar ( talk) 09:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
overturn easily meets GNG, i cant say it any better than the people above have. 70.72.193.104 ( talk) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
— 70.72.193.104 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Overturn There's no reason why GNAA shouldn't have an article when it pasess all of the appropriate guidelines and policies. 72.67.18.248 ( talk) 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC) reply
— 72.67.18.248 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Duncorn Hill ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The reason I am bringing this up here is not that I have particularly strong views about the article not being deleted, but that I think the closing admin's erroneous decision was not based on policy and has implications for other articles of this type. It is clear to me that there were policy-based reasons for deletion (e.g. it does not meet WP:GNG), but no policy-based reasons for retention.

My initial discussion with the closing admin can be found here, I feel it's not likely to yield a solution so bring this here for wider debate.

The only reason for not deleting I can discern is that the good-faith extensive searches to demonstrate failure to meet WP:GNG by debate particiapants were not deemed to be of sufficient rigour. I've not enoucntered this before in deletion closures - usually the fact the numerous contributors state they are unable to find significant coverage is enough, in the absnece of anyone demonstrating such coverage. Pontificalibus ( talk) 12:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

  • In DRV terms, I would simply endorse the "no consensus" outcome because it properly reflects the debate. But I think that what the nominator is asking is more of a question of how policy should be understood, so my opinion on that is in the collapse box below.— S Marshall T/ C 12:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Conversation between S Marshall and Pontificabilus

This is in the five pillars. Wikipedia's so focused on encyclopaedic content that sometimes we forget that we're more than just an encyclopaedia, but in fact we are more than that. We're also an almanac and, relevant to this, a gazetteer. The way I've always thought that WP:GNG and this "gazetteer" status interact, is that when it comes to geographical features, something like a map is a reliable source. What constitutes "significant coverage" is going to vary, but personally I would take the view that for UK geography, featuring on a 1:50,000 scale Ordnance Survey map means that it's probably more than just a minor geographical detail. If it doesn't appear on the 1:50,000 scale map but does feature on the 1:10,000, then I would say that further significant coverage would be necessary before an article was appropriate. This is intended to mean that individual streets or farms should not normally get their own article but I can see why a significant hill might well do.

I don't see how a "no consensus" outcome is correct, because when you strip out the arguments not based on policy, you're left with those claiming it fails to meet WP:GNG. Are we suggesting that subjects that don't meet WP:GNG (or don't appear to after a good faith search of sources) should have an article for some other reason? Because that's not my interpretation of WP:N (I recognise the debate on the notability of geographic features, but WP:N states that only WP:GNG applies as there is no more specific policy). I could create 10000 UK geographic feature articles tomorrow sourced only to single-word mentions in reports or maps, and if they all went the way of this AfD they'd all survive, even though none had "signifiacnt coverage about the subject addressing it directly in detail". Clearly that's against WP:N, so is WP:N faulty when it comes to certain subjects? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 14:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • For me, the key question you raise in this reply is: "Are we suggesting that subjects that don't meet WP:GNG ... should have an article for some other reason?" and my answer is, "yes". Broadly speaking, geographical locations are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, even when they are not strictly encyclopaedic topics, because of this gazetteer function that Wikipedia performs. (I would also say that dates and times are also suitable for inclusion even when not strictly encyclopaedic topics, because Wikipedia is an almanac as well as an encyclopaedia.)

    This broad statement of principles puts a fig leaf over the obscene morass of argument, opinion, precedent, exceptions and special cases that governs how geographical locations are treated in practice. Our definition of "geographical location" is bizarre and no lexicographer would recognise it. Various things that aren't even on Earth, such as individual asteroids, count as "geographical locations" for the purposes of the GNG, but most streets and farms do not. Some lakes, woods, or hills are suitable for inclusion, and others are not. Which ones get coverage in Wikipedia, at the level of individual cases, is down to the consensus on talk pages and AfDs.

    There is certainly inconsistency in our choices. This hill has been kept at AfD, but I'm quite sure that an exactly similar hill in Nigeria would have been deleted; an anomaly that exists because people have written an awful lot of books, articles and semi-informed opinion pieces about the British landscape. Personally, I suspect that the inconsistency and general weirdness of our treatment of geographical locations will never be converted into a systematic, thorough, and rigorous system. I'm sorry that it doesn't make sense, Pontificalibus, but I'm afraid that this is how it is when our encyclopaedia is largely written by monoglot British and American males who write about what they know.— S Marshall T/ C 10:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you, that answers my concerns about our inconsistency and lack of policy on the retention and deletion of articles on geographic features. I can see that attempts to form a policy have failed before, but I had thought the GNG might be helpful as a catch-all. It does seem though that a case-by-case tenuously-policy-based discussion is what we go with, which I don't have a problem with, but it's nice to know. I guess I will go with the advice at Wikipedia:Geographic_imbalance#Solving geographic imbalances.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 11:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: I've taken the liberty of collapsing all this discussion because it's not strictly within DRV's purview and the DRV closer does not need to consider it—though I think that all the admins who close DRVs are the kind of people who will open the collapse box and read it anyway!— S Marshall T/ C 12:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per both of SMarshall's rationales. An argument based on policy/guideline analysis which a nominator disagrees with should not be disregarded out of hand as "not based on policy." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'm surprised that Pontificalibus brought this matter to Deletion Review. We were discussing this matter on his talk page, & because he had told me to "take your time", I was: since he hadn't understood my earlier explanation, I was thinking on how to better explain myself. (I admit readily that my explanations aren't always as clear as I would like.) In any case if he disagreed with my closing, she/he was welcome to do further research & nominate this article for deletion -- or better, to merge it with another article so none of the information or sources used are lost.

    In a nutshell, & as S. Marshall points out above, for one to successfully show that a subject fails notability by WP:GNG -- & I hope by any measure -- one must perform due diligence. That is, find the appropriate reliable sources in which one would expect to read something about the subject & verify that it is mentioned there. (That is why I pointed Pontificalibus to the sources on her/his talk page: the publications of the English Place-Name Society, the Victoria County History (VCH), & the Ordinance Survey's historical maps of Great Britain -- all of which should be accessible through his local library.) Now it is difficult to find appropriate works for geographical landmarks in many parts of the world. I struggle with this problem when writing articles on Ethiopia where if suitable sources exist, in the vast majority of cases I either need to resort to buying them thru Amazon or Alibris (despite having the largest book store in North America located in my home town) or to using Interlibrary loan. However, concerning Europe -- & especially Great Britain -- there is an incredible wealth of historic, archeological, cultural, & scientific information about almost every square inch of the continent. Due diligence in this case would be to spend an hour or an afternoon in his local public library. Maybe I'm an unusual example of a Wikipedian, but I can think of far worse things to do with my time than to thumb through a copy of the VCH or John Leland's Itineraries. (FWIW, I've read both of these; but then, I may indeed be an unusual Wikipedian because I love to read obscure stuff.) And if Pontificalibus had shown interest in moving past my closing to performing the due diligence I had mentioned, I would have volunteered to help with the research: I happen to own copies of several of the Ordinance Surveys historical maps of Great Britain (which show information on reported archeological finds), although I bought all of them in 1984. Instead I can't help but wonder from all of Pontificalibus' actions if we have a case of WikiLawyering here; I'd rather extend good faith & hope that the two of us can together determine what importance Duncorn Hill truly has -- even if it the one unnotable place in all of Great Britain. -- llywrch ( talk) 16:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for endorsing your own decision. Your extensive commentaries on "due diligence" are what prompted me to bring this here, as it seems you are missing the point. No other closing admins at AfD insist on anything other than a "good-faith attempt to confirm that sources don't exist". Hundreds of AfDs are closed every month as delete for failing WP:N where the respondents are unable to significant coverage in reliable sources. If Llywrch had applied the above to all of these AfDs, I suspect none of them would have been closed as delete. You admit these sources you require analysis of are obscure - however most are available on Google books and so would have been encompassed in most people's searches. The fact is, no one demonstrated the subjects meets WP:GNG, so I am wondering by what other criteria articles about non-notable subjects are retained? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 17:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
IMHO, these other Admins ought to hold deletion nominations to the same high standard I held you. I'd be happier when I nominate articles for deletion, & the articles are deleted, had other Admins done the same in my case. I would then know that people were thinking about my nomination, & that I was doing the right thing, instead of left wondering if any article listed at AfD would end up deleted. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse a no-consensus close is just that: no consensus. Note that this is an article for a real location for which offline sources are likely to exist. It is entirely reasonable to expect that those arguing for deletion have demonstrated (not proven, for that's impossible) the likely lack of such sources. Notability is not an end in and of itself--it is a filter to keep random crap no one cares about (except the editor who created the article...) out of the encyclopedia. The pendulum has swung too far when people are demanding deletion of an article on an unquestionably real place just because they can't find enough online sources that discuss it in detail. Jclemens ( talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse There is , in fact, no policy saying that an item must be notable to have a Wikipedia article; what we actually do have as the relevant policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE , which says we distinguish what things are and are not worth articles, and a guideline, WP:N, giving some of the criteria for what we ordinarily consider sufficient reason for there to be an article. A view that we should include every hill on earth would be indiscriminate, & I don't think anyone is arguing that. a view that we should include some hills is in conformity with the policy. The position that verifiable information about a significant geographic feature is sufficient to over-ride WP:N is a firmly policy based argument, on the basis of the two most basic of the policies, one, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , and two, IAR. The only guide for how to interpret IAR is the community, considering the particular instance. The discussion about how evidence of a fort was not found there, is actually sensible, because a very large number of these geographic features are in fact fortifications of other artifacts. That this was worth investigating, & was investigated, is relevant and encyclopedic . DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • (ec)Overturn to Keep  (FYI: I !voted "Keep" in the Afd.)  There was not a single viable delete position, with the possible exception of one referencing an essay.  The few delete !votes that mentioned a guideline opined that if a hill does not have a hillfort, it does not satisfy WP:GNG.  As I noted at the AfD, "...the 'hillfort non-notability guideline' (WP:HNNG)...says that hills that don't have hillforts are not notable, for which no supporting examples have been provided."  A closing admin could have dismissed this line of reasoning as having no weight, as the concept of "non-notableness" does not exist in Wikipedia, instead there are multiple paths to notability/inclusion.  There were no other delete references to relevant guidelines.  There were no references to policy by any delete participant (unless you include the misunderstanding that WP:N is a policy).  Closing admin could also have dismissed several delete votes as drive-by's.  Drive-by votes cannot be reduced by the force of reason.  While some keep participants also joined in the WP:HNNG debate and could have had such positions given zero weight, one or more keep participants identified and supported at least one each of a policy, a guideline, a definition of notability, a relevant notability essay, and a fundamental principle.  For whatever reason, deletion votes included invective and hyperbole: "a whole lot of nothing", "blatant", "rocket science", "hard to believe" that we "actually need to spell out", "bunch of terribly bored kindergarteners", "plain laughable assertions", "spectacularly devoid", "creative use of ellipses", and (referring to a notability essay that was briefly a guideline) "it's an editor's opinion".  Also for whatever reason, again by deletion positions, there was disruption by commenting on other participants, including one redacted comment, "tying yourself in knots", "the line you misquote", "leave that spin out of it", and "insulting our intelligence".  Another participant brought a "facepalm" icon to the AfD, 20 hours after this comment about a participant in the AfD.  FYI, see also this response.  In the end, the closing admin has taken a variation of my challenge to a delete position, "What I don't see are metrics that separate 'just a hill' hills <WP:JAHG> from those that are more than 'just a hill', and where within the current guidelines and policies WP:JAHG should fit (i.e., WP:IAR, the definition of notability in WP:N, a new SNG)," and rehabilitated the entire delete position with an idea that no single delete position advanced.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Hindsight always has 20-20 vision. Had Pontificalibus mentioned in his nomination the fact P. had lived for 17 years near this hill & never knew it had a name, I might have closed this as a delete. Had you taken the time to go to the library & perform the due diligence I told P. was lacking -- & found materials which proved this hill was clearly notable -- then I might have closed this as a keep. Or, instead of simply citing part of an essay, had you explained why it made sense here -- viz., why a named geographical feature is notable -- I might have also closed this as a keep. (Then there is the issue no one seems to have raised: why not merge this article with another one? Articles listed at WP:AfD aren't a black/white, keep/delete issue.) I'm an old-school Wikipedian; I like making decisions on articles based on common sense assumptions like, "How likely is an average user going to look for this subject?" When it gets to arguing just what policy is & what the words mean, I get uncomfortable because I know the discussion will end with garbage. That is why I put the burden of proof on proving that the article needs to be deleted: we are talking about removing content from Wikipedia, & once removed it cannot be easily restored. That is why I'm kicking this back to the community: I want someone to actually research this subject & explain to the rest of us whether or not it deserves its own article, or even part of any article. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse close - While the delete thinking regarding the application of WP:GNG to geographical landmarks is faulty, it does represent an IAR view such that no consensus was within the closers discretion. Being a named geographical landmark does not make it notable. However, logic dictates that you generally cannot have a named geographical landmark without their existing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Government paperwork is needed to create the existence of the geographical landmark and that paperwork alone should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. RS need not be in the article: The actual reliable sources need not be in the article or presented at AfD. The logic of their existence itself is sufficient to conclude that the named geographical landmark meets WP:GNG because of the strong likelihood of the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is particularly true in an area like Somerset England, which has been around since at least 845. An assertion that in the last 1,166 years people have not written enough information about Duncorn Hill to maintain a standalone Wikipedia article on the topic is absurd. No need to produce source material: The fact the numerous contributors state they are unable to find significant coverage is irrelevant because the AfD test in this situation is not the actual finding source material; rather, it is a likelihood of its existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Since the delete positions at the AfD all avoided addressing this likelihood in view of the past 1,166 years in a populated area, their position was very weak and essentially conceded the point to the keep positions. The no consensus close is in deference to the consensus feature of the AfD discussion rather than an overriding application of WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, delete - No offense, but the close rationale reads like "I don't know what to do here, so let's just split the baby and call it a day". We have a simple general notability guideline; either it satisfies GNG, or it does not. The estimable Duncorn Hill does not. Tarc ( talk) 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • IIRC, King Solomon was quite successful in that decision: the true mother was found because she was the one who truly loved the child. Given the choice, I'd rather split the baby than split hairs. (God grant me the wisdom to know when I have the choice.) -- llywrch ( talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • enodrse close Uzma's remarks and DGG's remarks seem strong especially in the light of one of the sources explicitly calling the hill an important landmark. No consensus seems reasonable here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per DGG. WP:N (and thus the GNG) is a guideline that is subject to common sense exceptions and setting aside by consensus. It is not a rigid policy to be enforced by admin deletion in the face of a real consensus to keep, or the lack of a true consensus to delete. Often a spurious lack of consensus can be generated by sock puppets or new users making arguments that ignore existing guidelines. But in other cases, such as this one, existing users made the reasoned argument that the guideline shouldn't apply in this case. Such arguments are fully within policy, WP:IAR, and should not be simply discounted by the closing admin. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The "guideline" is not WP:GNG, but WP:N, which can be satisfied without WP:GNG being satisfied.  What is missing here is a consensus that explains the ten thousand geography articles in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse finding of no consensus- I argued to delete this article on the grounds that the sourcing was weak and actually seemed to be demonstrating the non-notability of the hill. But others argued that, because Wikipedia incorporates the functions of a gazetteer, it should include named landmarks and that the general notability guideline doesn't strictly apply to them. I personally mistrust this philosophy because it promotes the creation of useless, contentless microstubs with no prospects of ever being expanded to something informative. But I can't see that this close was so out of line that it needs to be reversed. I think 'no consensus' is a fair reading of the debate, though 'delete' would have been acceptable also. I would however urge the closing admin in future to pay more attention to arguments that discuss and analyze the actual sources. Reyk YO! 02:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, because "no consensus" always allows for relisting with a stronger rationale at a later date, and suggest early close, because there's no way this is going to be deleted as a result of this debate, and the questions discussed above about the inherent notability or lack thereof of places would best be discussed either in a new AfD or in a broader guideline debate. Chick Bowen 23:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose early close  There is plenty to digest here and either more opinions or several more days with no responses are appropriate.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

First, I tried to work it out with the admin who deleted the page, but he suggested that I request a deletion review. I am requesting undeletion of the Tricentis article. The reasons in support of this request are the following:

  • Tricentis is notable as evidenced by Gartner’s Magic Quadrant 2011.
  • the article only provides basic information on Tricentis and does not use any promotional language or content
  • the topic is no more specialized than any other software automation company already listed on Wikipedia
  • the alleged COI on its own is not a reason for speedy deletion

Jkoprax ( talk) 09:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

done. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I think an AFD on this would be reasonable, though I have my doubts. I'm not sure Gartner's is sufficiently independent to qualify as a reliable source. Google News Search turns up a half-dozen entries in German, but most are just reprints of press releases. The only actual article I found is this one in WirtschaftsBlatt. Chick Bowen 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Personally I think that this should be an article for the German Wikipedia. Phearson ( talk) 21:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I broadly agree with Chick Bowen, and I think it's part of DRV's function to provide FairProcess on request from a good faith editor. List at AfD if the nominator insists, though it might well not survive.— S Marshall T/ C 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • List at AfD - Founded in 1997 and now has about 100 employees. It is possible that reliable sources wrote about TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting. Likely, that info is in Vienna, Austria and won't be revealed in an AfD (because it is in German and most English Wikipedians only read English. Also, a software quality assurance company doesn't seem the type to generate news coverage. However, Jkoprax seems a good faith editor and the deleted article wasn't too promoty. A 7 day AfD might bring forth some reliable sources, so list at AfD. Jkoprax, you may want to look over WP:GNG before the AfD. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • After reading your feedback and checking the GNG, I would have to agree with you that there are not enough independent and reliable sources at the moment to justify the English stand-alone article. Is there any way to put the article on hold? If not, does getting deleted now make it harder to rewrite and post the article at a later point? I know Tricentis is expanding to the USA and there might be enough information available in English in 6 months or so to justify an article. But in the meantime I will probably try to post the article in German since there are a number of sources ranging from Wirtschaftsblatt to der Standard to Computerwelt and Monitor. Thank you for your commentary – it has been very helpful. Jkoprax ( talk) 10:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy to Jkoprax in accordance with his reasonable request. Also, Jkoprax, if you write the article in German, then provided there are reliable sources, it will be in order to translate it into English. You can have an English-language article with German-language sources (and I have personally created several such).— S Marshall T/ C 13:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_16&oldid=1088118947"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE