- Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The Gay Nigger Association of America article has a very long and troubled history on Wikipedia, and I profusely apologize to any of those that feel it is a waste of time to drag this through yet another Deletion Review.
Before I begin, let me sum up the last major developments. A userspace draft was started from scratch so all sources could be properly checked for verifiability. A previous deletion review was opened on 2010 September 6, which ended as a no consensus close. The review remained open for the required seven days, and was closed in a manner which included a clear and concise description of the closing admin's rationale supporting his decision. Disregarding all non-policy based arguments for keeping this page deleted, the opposers felt that 1) "the notability claims of the supporters, which rely on sources that often mention GNAA in passing during coverage of other topics, or which don't mention it at all." and 2) "The supporters seem to rely on coverage of Goatse Security as supporting notability of the GNAA, but parent organizations do not typically inherit notability from subsidiaries or affiliates". The closing admin had no objection with allowing an article to be created about Goatse Security as an alternative.
I feel that the opposers are wrong in their interpretations of 1 and 2, and I can build the necessary consensus required to overturn deletion.
On point 1, the claim that sources that mention GNAA are passing mentions are false, and can be seen in the article draft, for from the sources presented multiple facts can be derived from a single source. Now, the guidelines don't offer a very great litmus test as what is a trivial mention and what is not, the example from WP:Notability states a single sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton would be plainly trivial. The sources on the draft article do not fit this example of being plainly trivial.
Point 2 is the claim that the notability of GNAA rests on the notability of Goatse Security, and notability is not inherited. This claim would be true if the sources did not establish notability for the GNAA on its own merit rather than on the merit of the other organisation. I would like to point out that the sources used in the draft establish notability for both organisations in the same news article. The article by the Atlantic states "Weev rails against Jews in his LiveJournal and he and several other members of Goatse Security claim to be members of the Gay N***** Association of America," and in the Portuguese article in Rede Globo, the author goes on to describe other members of the GNAA.
Again, I must apologize for what some may seem as unnecessary, but I would only open this new deletion review if I felt that the policies overwhelmingly would support this article to exist under the notability guidelines. Thank you. riffic (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Endorse deletion - I counted up !votes and found 45 delete, 34 keep, 1 merge, and 1 redirect. The vast majority of the keep !votes had invalid rationales. For instance, "Keep because this is the 18th nomination" was used at least a dozen times, as well as "I've heard of this group before", and "They're notable". There was also evidence of votestacking, as there were several SPA's that voted to Keep, there were other Keep voters who were subsequently blocked, and there were attempts to forge Keep votes. Nearly all of the delete votes focussed on the poor quality of the references in the article. I didn't vote in the AfD and therefore didn't get a chance to see the sources, however that is irrelevant because DRV isn't a continuation of the AfD, it is an assessment of whether the closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I believe that the consensus was clearly to delete this article. SnottyWong soliloquize 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)I mistakenly thought this was a recent AfD.[reply]
- Please take a look at the DRV that was opened on September 6 2010, as well as the current draft in userspace. If you are basing your judgement on the AFD from 2006, circumstances have changed since then. riffic (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not basing my judgement on anything except this AfD (i.e. the 18th nomination). The long history of the situation is frankly irrelevant. There was a wealth of discussion in this AfD and the consensus was clear. SnottyWong yak 23:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please familiarize yourself with deletion policy -- "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Now I am going to go to chipotle and eat a burrito, so I will be offline for the next hour. I hope this is enough time for you to review the previous drv, and the userpage draft, and see if this new information would permit recreation. thank you for your time, riffic (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been one edit to the userspace draft since the last DRV closed. That edit added a wikilink to the article. How can you possibly claim that the userspace draft has been significantly changed so as to warrant another DRV? SnottyWong yak 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close - Upon further research, it appears this is the seventh time that this article has been brought to DRV (and the fourth time over the course of the last two months). The DRV closes the same way every time. The AfD happened in 2006. This is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. I just wasted 15 minutes of my life evaluating the AfD before realizing that this DRV is completely frivolous. SnottyWong speak 23:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply incorrect. Yes, it is the 4th time in two months that this discussion has been brought to DRV, but I have only brought it forward one other time. I am not doing this to be disruptive, I stated in the argument that I would only do this if I knew that I could build a consensus to permit recreation based on meeting policy requirements. you are not assuming good faith and I hope you strike out your comment riffic (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we had an edit conflict. I initially thought you brought it to DRV all four times, but I was mistaken and changed my comments before you responded. For that, I apologize. However, I stand by my call for a speedy close. The AfD ended in 2006. There have been 6 DRV's since, and not one of them has overturned the deletion. I don't think there was ever a more appropriate time to direct you to WP:GETOVERIT. SnottyWong converse 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These were concerns I had originally as well, however your !vote will be discounted by any closing admin with an ounce of discretionary thought. please don't keep me from my burrito riffic (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
