The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus is clear that this is an active, good faith attempt at writing an encyclopedia article on a possibly notable topic, consistent with userspace norms. Skomorokh 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

User:Murdox/GNAA

Attempt to create an article for a non-notable, Internet trolls organization, that is unacceptable to have around. Diego Grez ( talk) 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article is constantly being updated with notable citations referring to the organisation in question, there are other wikipedia pages dedicated to notable internet trolls, and "unacceptable to have around"? I'd at least appreciate that being backed up with some kind of reference to Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. Murdox ( talk) 01:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd also like to cite Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline. Murdox ( talk) 04:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I know of them only because i've been around the spam attacks mentioned in the article, I'm not really sure if it's notable or not so I'll say either Weak Delete or Weak keep. (if there were a neutral I would go there) Pilif12p :  Yo  01:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sourcing is thin; GNAA article has been salted and is unlikely to be rebuilt even with this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Otters want attention)} 04:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would just like to point out that a combination of GNAA and Goatse Security have made a news story on practically every major american news network at this point. Murdox ( talk) 04:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment They've also made international news. LiteralKa ( talk) 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is a work-in-progress. It is not in the main Wikipedia namespace, and also uses NOINDEX. I do not think this article in its current location will cause any harm. I find the group name distasteful, but I do not see why they are not worthy enough to have an article; especially after they saved over 120,000 American iPad users from getting their email addresses sold off to spammers. GNAA from 2005 when the article was first made has changed a lot in the current time; a lot more Wiki-worthy achievements have been made. I understand there will be some discomfort when this leaves Murdox's userspace, but that is not the time now. The article is still a WIP, and in a "no harm" zone! Harry ( talk) 04:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per Harry Peter.C • talk 04:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per The Register as a source. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We have articles about Uncyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and Al Yankovic's White & Nerdy, all of which, in some form or another, encourage vandalism. So far, WP:DENY does not seem to is an essay and does not explicitly mention articles or userpages such as these. It also says "[D]ocumenting a new form of vandalism in a neutral manner like Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism ensures a suitable awareness of that vandalism's existence." :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• weak keep this is in userspace and an attempt to develop a proper article, although the effort should be discouraged under WP:DENY as glorifying a group that exists for harassment and vandalism (even if they have recently done a good thing regarding security disclosures). Triona ( talk) 05:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:DENY applies exclusively to wikipedia vandals. Murdox ( talk) 05:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep This is now a notable subject, by any definition, it was by almost any a few years ago. End your vendetta, Wikipedia. LiteralKa ( talk) 05:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep AGF attempt to write a V-safe version. Publicize and incubate it so WPs best researchers can dig out undeniable sources. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
• Keep - the AFDs were some while ago, and we don't delete userspace drafts unless there is a snowballs's chance in hell of them surviving in mainspace. While I admit that I'm probably going to !vote delete if this ends up in mainspace, there are plenty of editors who believe GNAA is indeed notable, and creating userspace drafts on such subjects is not particularly uncommon practise. Claritas § 09:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Firstly, it's in the userspace, where it can't cause any problems. Secondly, no one here complained about User:Riffic/Gay Nigger Association of America. Thirdly, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 27 encourages an userspace draft. Fourthly, Wikipedia is not censored; articles on trolling organizations can be made. Fifthly, this is just my opinion, but I felt this MfD is a part of a witch-hunt against articles Wikipedia don't want or like. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 12:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment at Murdox So what is this? Diego Grez ( talk) 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • This is a screenshot of an IRC chat session that you took and subsequently uploaded. Try to keep up. 24.27.92.149 ( talk) 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That is an IRC log of me politely asking my fellow internet IRC buddies for their input and contributions to my userspace. Honestly, I think you can infer that much from the picture alone. Murdox ( talk) 17:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • So "EDIT THIS SHIT FAGGOTS" is to politely ask your fellow Internet IRC buddies for their input and contributions to your userspace. Lolwhat. Diego Grez ( talk) 17:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
        • To put it incredibly bluntly: Yes. Murdox ( talk) 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
          • When in Rome... LiteralKa ( talk)
• Strong delete – do not feed the trolls. – MuZemike 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The only trolls here seem to be the deletionists this time around. LiteralKa ( talk) 19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Watch who you're calling a "deletionist" LiteralKa. Some people can actually see past this ruse. – MuZemike 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • So legitimate content is a "ruse" now? LiteralKa ( talk) 20:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
        • I don't know. What else would you call freenode IRC canvassing in the form of "EDIT THIS SHIT FAGGOTS". In my opinion, this whole situation stinks. – MuZemike 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
          • That wasn't even on Freenode. Additionally: When in Rome... LiteralKa ( talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
            • But they have been trolling the #freenode channel severely to the point where the ops had to shut the channel down. They've also repeated their terror on similar WP-related channels. – MuZemike 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
              • How is that even relevant to canvassing? LiteralKa ( talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                • Because it's a clear attempt by this organization to wedge their article back on WP, and they're trying to do it by any means necessary. This is not the only time this has been attempted, either. – MuZemike 20:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                  • So trolling IRC networks is really an attempt to get a wiki article? LiteralKa ( talk) 20:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                    • That would be right. I can vouch for that, and so can others, including DiegoGrez above. – MuZemike 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                      • Also, speaking of "trying to do it by any means necessary", deletionists did that to the old mainspace article dozens of times.

• • • And seriously, when does canvasing even matter for an *article*. There is no vote to change. LiteralKa ( talk) 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Don't throw IDONTLIKEIT in my face; I know very well what that means. I am not changing my !vote, period. – MuZemike 20:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
        • So now you have no point to make, and still wish to keep the vote? Very well. LiteralKa ( talk) 20:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Figuring how this MFD is going, I'll see you at AFD #19. – MuZemike 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
            • So not only do you wish to keep trying, but you want to have yet another AFD. Don't game the system. LiteralKa ( talk) 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
              • Who said I was going to nominate it? Somebody eventually will, especially for something contentious as this. – MuZemike 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                • I sure didn't. Oh, I see you're included in CAT:RESTORE. Would it be at all possible to provide me with a copy of the old GNAA article? Thank you in advance. LiteralKa ( talk) 20:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                  • Despite our disagreements, I can do that. Wiki-page or email? – MuZemike 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                    • Wikipage would be more appropriate/useful. LiteralKa ( talk) 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                      •  Done User:LiteralKa/Gay Nigger Association of America – MuZemike 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
                        • Thank you. LiteralKa ( talk) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Turbostrong Keep This article was deleted on the grounds that it was not properly cited and not notable enough. This organization has now appeared on CNN, CNET, Gawker, Bloomberg, and plenty of other sources that will surely count for proper notability and citeability, and *THIS* page is specifically an attempt to create a legitimate article with properly sourced information. 24.27.92.149 ( talk) 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• comment note User:Riffic/Gay Nigger Association of America. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If anything, that should be merged into this one. LiteralKa ( talk) 22:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per Harry, way up there above me. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.