Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

28 November 2006

Dark Army

Dark Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

This page had good information and I think the page was deleted to hastely. Thanks. SephirothYuyX 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid A7, no assertion of notability. Article can be recreated if notability can be asserted with reference to independent reliable sources, but given the sentence "Dark Army is still active playing rarely at bars keeping a low front in the music industry" I really doubt that that's possible. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ouch. Endorse. Chris cheese whine 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - yeah, when the article goes out of it's way to assert that it's not notable, you can't really expect it to be kept. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Prior to the speedy-deletion, this was decided at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dark Army. Endorse closure. No evidence that the situation has changed from the time of the last discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

I have speciefied my reasons here ([1]) During the AFD, the authors of the article were AFAIK not notified, and the article was deleted based on an uncritical reading of WP:BIO. Notablity for astrologers or religious leaders like PNB is not easy to establish. WP:BIO says even in the introduction: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." PNB is clearly a published author, and her notability must be judged by comparing her to other astrologers or religious leaders, where I think she is notable, on grounds of her published books and writings, and her role as a religious leader. A. G. E. Blake for example in The Intelligent Enneagram says: "An important and useful text, which makes reference to the enneagram in this context, is The Gnostic Circle, by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet." She was also criticized by authors unrelated to her or to her group like Rajaram: [2] And Jenkins has also written about her: The author Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, and her book The Gnostic Circle (published in 1978) has also been a keystone piece of information which allowed Jenkins to futher confirm aspects of the galactic center as written into ancient Vedic philosophies. Jenkins states that The Gnostic Circle is "a deep, intuitive, and complex work." The book, according to Jenkins, contains an almost matter-of-fact description of the evolutionary implications of our periodic alignments with the Galactic Center.[3] There are probably many other references to her or to her followers, including criticisms by Aurobindo groups. (And I'm not at all an expert on Patricia or even on Astrology, but have still heard about her.) Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. The deletion of this article was incidentally even noteworthy enough to be mentioned on kheper.net. --Mallarme 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Mallarme 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: notifying the creator of an article of an AfD is common courtesy, but not doing so does not invalidate the AfD. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I fixed the AfD link above to the actual one, which also links to various other related AfD's. I don't see anything above that would convince me to change my call, but I abstain since I closed it. (Yay! First contested AfD closure!) ~ trialsanderrors 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I can find no process problems with the deletion discussion. The core problem with the article was the lack of independent, reliable sources on which to base the article or to demonstrate notability. None of the new sources cited above reliably address that concern. Rossami (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I see no evidence of abuse of discretion by the closer. None of the new sources mentioned above appear at first glance to be sources that are both independent and reliable. GRBerry 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vista Ridge Mall

Vista Ridge Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why was this article deleted? It did not meet any criteria for a speedy deletion. I've also noticed that you seem to have a habit of deleting entries related to shopping malls.160.147.240.6 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• See other threads below. This was a directory entry on a mall operated by General Growth Properties, one of a number edited by Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is clearly associated with that company. It was advertorial in tone, unsourced except for the mall's own website, and offered nothing by way of evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: It was a Yellow Pages listing, effectively, with no assertion that the subject was encyclopedic. At the same time, a mass AfD or AfD on this one or an RFC on land developments would be nice. We have had several objects like housing subdivisions, apartment complexes, malls, etc., and it would be wonderful if we had a guideline to point at to make the criteria clear. Geogre 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, I completely agree. This was never intended to set any knid of precedent, I was just working through a spam campaign by Dvac (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Guy (Help!) 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lee Van Corteza

Objections to speedy deletions are not grounds for immediate referral to AfD. This is a special case. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg

File:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted by User:Betacommand as part of a reckless purge of about 1500 images tagged as replaceable fair-use. This image, and many others were tagged with {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, but the admin seems to have spent about 5 seconds per image and did not consider any fair-use rationale. See also Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Massive_Image_Deletion. Requesting Overturn as an out-of-process deletion. Dgies 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Note this was subsequently redeleted by a different admin, but as an observation the image was tagged {{promophoto}} which has a very specific meaning and is frequently misused, I can't tell if that were the case in this instance since it had no source, so I can't check if the source was indeed a press pack releasing the image for publicity purposes. The image could also have been deleted for no source in due course... --pgk 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairmont Preparatory Academy

Fairmont Preparatory Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

After the AfD had started, an explicit and sourced claim of notability was made based on recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program awarded by the United States Department of Education, considered to be the highest honor that an American school can achieve. This claim was backed up with relevant, reliable sources from the United States Department of Education, provided to document the school's receipt of this award. We are approaching a strong consensus at both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3 that receipt of a national recognition such as by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program constitutes evidence of notability. I must also question the one-sided dissection of the intent and reasoning of the votes of those who chose to keep this article, while failing to apply the same standard to other poorly argued votes ("because of, as the title states, being non notable") and several other unsupported and unargued variations of "non notable". Claims of non-notability included a claim that the Blue Ribbon Award is non-notable, a claim that is clearly contradicted at the Blue Ribbon Schools Program article. While we would all strongly prefer to see all those voting to keep an article demonstrate some more substance regarding their logic, the fact that an arbitrarily high standard of argument was upheld in only one direction, while ignored in the other, is at best inconsistent. There is no clear reasoned consensus for deletion, even with throwing out votes, other than based on ignoring the notability of the award. I strongly urge all those reading to overturn this deletion. Closing administrator was approached before opening this DRV and encouraged its creation. Alansohn 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as closer - I stand by my assessment of the debate; please refer to my closing comments in the AFD. Proto::type 13:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome The first delete opinion other than than the nomination contained a statement that the article was based on a copyright violation. Under the GFDL, all subsequent revisions must credit that history, but it is a copyright violation. That requires deletion by overriding policy. It also says nothing about recreation of a new article that does not use the history. GRBerry 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, I see no evidence of abuse of discretion by the closure, and no keep arguments from overriding policy that would require a keep outcome regardless of the outcome of the discussion. The best keep argument was the claim that it was notable for having won a Blue Ribbon Award. But nobody actually found any coverage by independent sources for having won the award, which is the acid test when pushed. User:Pan Dan explicitly checked both Google and Lexis-Nexis (a far better search tool, but not one that is freely available) and found no coverage that would evidence notability from the Blue Ribbon Award. So the appropriate evaluation here is that the BRA is, in fact, not an automatic basis for notability. No notability standard for schools has attained even guideline status, much less policy status, so it is simply impossible to make an argument for keeping from overriding policy based on any criteria that may or may not appear in such a standard if there ever is one. GRBerry 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• And what policy exactly was being overriden here? Please be specific. --JJay 02:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the closer was saying that that WP:N, which is a guideline, is based on WP:V, which is a policy -- note that WP:N states that "This requirement [i.e. being the subject of multiple non-trivial outside sources] ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic." Pan Dan 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• As a follow-up since you have now changed the rationale for your comments, which are based on the unproven assertion of a user who was arguing to delete the article, I would appreciate your comment on the news coverage of the school's Blue Ribbon award and White House ceremony [4] . This is from the Los Angeles Times, the newspaper of record for the state of California and one of the leading newspapers in the United States. --JJay 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• (Sorry to butt in here, since you are asking GRBerry, but) I have to note that you are talking about a 255-word write-up in the Orange County [i.e. local] Edition of the LA Times. I don't think that's enough to re-open the debate, as the reason for deletion was that "the school is not the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability." That is still the case (with "(or any)" removed, but that is ancillary, and if the LA Times article is trivial we can leave "(or any)" in there). (Comment: the article didn't, and still doesn't, show up on Lexis-Nexis, don't know why.) Pan Dan 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Proto's reasoning is clear and well-articulated - a very good example of AfD being assessed as a discussion not a head count, whcih is why we moved from VfD in the first place. Eusebeus 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per GRBerry and Eusebeus. 1ne 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per above. (Note that I did not participate in this AfD discussion.) AfD isn't a headcount, and Berry and Eusebeus bring up excellent points as to why this was a completely valid closure. The closer's statements are clear and concise, and I see no reason to disagree with them (and not just because I'm a so-called "deletionist"). -- Kicking222 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. Multiple sourced claims to notability were made within the article, and I disagree completely with the "rationale" provided by the closing administrator. Silensor 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn notability is proven... the rationale in closing was simply wrong.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. I don't get it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. Another misguided close of a non-consensus result that oversteps the bounds of admin discretion. The nominator's entire argument consisted of: Non notable school, suggest deletion under WP:SCHOOL. Without any effort to support the assertion with some type of evidence or reasoning, that is no better than saying "doesn't reach my personal standards". Leaving aside the fact that WP:School is not policy or guideline, I would have to discount that nomination along with the two delete commentators who merely typed "delete per nom" or NN. The keep side argued, in part, that the school merited an article because of winning a US government award. The closer states the award failed WP:V. That was false- it was sourced and verified. Hence, the support for inclusion had foundation that can not be completely discounted by the closer. The closer further misstates policy by claiming the article needs to be: subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability. I am not aware of any policy that makes that requirement. It can not be used to justify over-riding a discussion with consensus or lack of consensus. I also find it odd that the closer discounted all the keep comments, but none of the delete comments. Finally, regarding GRBerry's copyvio point: the standard way of handling this is to move the article to a temporary page and then restore a version w/o the copyvio history. This is explained at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Nothing requires deletion in this case. In short, the delete close is not justified and needs to be overturned. --JJay 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the comment as saying that there was no version without the copyvio history. In which case there are no legitimate versions to restore. That isn't clearly asserted in the comment however. I see no functional difference between restoring zero versions and deleting the page, so nothing here that I really need to evaluate. But I'll expand on my reason for endorsing to make it clear that I would endorse even if the copyright violation hadn't been mentioned. GRBerry 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore. Notability was demonstrated in a verifiable manner, and the deletion was made under shakey pretenses. RFerreira 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak endorsementI initially said keep to the article based on the presence of the Ribbon and then switched to delete when the complete lack of sources discussing the ribbon was made apparent. That said, I'm concerned that this may be getting very close to the limit of admin discretion even though I generally support admin discretion when closing difficult AfDs. However, it is one thing to discount an argument like "all schools are notable" but it is a bit more difficult to discount an explicit claim of notability. Furthermore, one of the keep comments which the closer discounted as making "no sense" was a reference to an earlier version WP:SCHOOLS (that proposal has almost zero chance of being accepted and that relevant part is one of the most contentious parts to ever be in it, but it wasn't quite nonsense). The final argument against admin discretion in this case is that as a default matter this wasn't really in the no consensus range (normally around 50% to 66% for deletion) but rather in the keep range as a straight voting matter). All of that said, the lack of meeting WP:N is a policy based issue and the matter therefore seems to be plausibly within admin discretion but barely. JoshuaZ 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) stuck out analysis still is correct but has been superseed by JJay's point that he has a source. Thus, overturning do to the availibility of new sources, but not commenting strongly in anyway on the close which occured. It might make sense to list it on AfD again with the new source but I wouldn't object to a straight undeletion either. JoshuaZ 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Two points: (i) are you saying that WP:N is policy that justifies deleting or keeping articles regardless of the consensus in an AFD?; (ii) you mention a "complete lack of sources" as the basis for your delete "vote". I can't remember what sources were in the article, but I believe DRV is meant to address not just the close of an article, but also new information that may have come to light since the close, as well as overriding a potentially defective discussion due to lack of information. With that in mind, would you please comment on the LA Times link that I provided above for the coverage of this school's blue ribbon award. --JJay 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• To your first inquiry, admins are allowed a fair bit of discretion when closing AfDs which would otherwise be a no consensus and this was very close to being a no consensus especially when the very weak arguments such as the 50 year comment are weighed in that fashion. I therefore see this on the outskirts of admin discretion but within that discretion. As to your second point- I've modified my opinion based on the presence of a new source. JoshuaZ 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• overturn and undelete The reason for the deletion was proofen to be incorrect, unaffected from this is the claim that another reason for deletion exist. This claim can be made AFTER this deletion was overturned and the article undeleted (which also prevents possible future abuse as wrong reference or example). After that will the article follow the established rules and regulations of wikipedia again as every other article in the system. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Scores work out to 3-1½ points in favour of deletion, securing the case, with a default delete because of the copyright and WP:V concerns. This debate was one of my examples for demonstrating the evaluation method. Chris cheese whine 10:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is without prejudice to a new article, free of copyright concerns, and properly sourced. Chris cheese whine 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the blue ribbon award was sourced in the article to a US government document there were no WP:V concerns. The copyright concern is also a red herring and is based on a misunderstanding of practice. The inputs in your "evaluation method" were flawed. The results are, at best, personal opinion, but fall way short of any type of effective policy discounting model. Your initial comment implying an official score, "case" or default result is highly deceptive--JJay 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure despite User:JJay's LA Times source. The article was deleted because "the school is not the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability." That is still the case (with "(or any)" removed, but obviously that is ancillary, and if the LA Times article is trivial we can leave "(or any)" in there). Sources were sought, with no results, in the AfD. There is no reason to re-open the debate on the basis of a single 255-word write-up in a local paper (note it's the "Orange County Edition"). Find more sources, and I will probably change my opinion. (Note on my Lexis-Nexis search: I don't know why JJay's LA Times article didn't (and still doesn't) show up on Lexis-Nexis, but I gather the Orange County Edition, which is archived there daily now, wasn't archived there until after 1990 when Fairmont got the award.) Pan Dan 12:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (Comment) I do want to note that the closer's statement that "winning [the] award ... fails WP:V, and WP:RS" doesn't seem right, as there is no question that the school won the award according to USDOE's website, which is reliable. However the closer's main reason to delete stands: the school, let alone its winning of the award, did not garner multiple media coverage. Pan Dan 12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/enable recreation: Copyright issue with the previous version. `'mikkanarxi 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Per silensor, all schools are inherently notable. -- Librarianofages 21:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Seems within admin discretion. No prejudice against creation of a multiply-sourced, non-copyvio version of the article. Shimeru 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing admin's decision was based on the quality of the arguments and was the conclusion any reasonable reader would reach after reading the debate. —ptk✰fgs 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Compliance with copyright law trumps consensus. Scanning the history, I found no non-copyvio version worth keeping. Whether or not a new, non-copyvio article could be created on this topic is a separate question and should be left until we have such an article to discuss. However, I am skeptical of the claim that winning the Blue Ribbon Schools Program in any one year is an automatic qualifier for an encyclopedia article. It could support a claim for notability but about 300 are awarded each year. Incidentally, that's been running just over 80% of those nominated each year. Despite the description as "the highest honor that an American school can achieve", it's not exactly an exclusive award. Rossami (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your comment is not consistent with wikipedia policy. The article was edited beyond any copyvio state that may have existed. I explained this above, but please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. --JJay 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry. My clarification got lost in an edit conlict. When reviewing the pagehistory, I found no non-copyvio version worth preserving. While you are correct that we have processes for correcting copyvios introduced into otherwise good articles, I found no evidence to justify such extraordinary measures in this particular case. The non-copyvio versions I found all occurred after the deletion debate had begun. Given the urgency of copyvio issues, we are better served with a clean slate. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There are two different issues here: judging the merits of a topic for inclusion through an AFD discussion and dealing with a potential copyvio problem. The article does not qualify for a CSD G12 if there were substantial non-copyvio edits - it doesn't matter when those edits took place. Wikipedia:Copyright problems exists for a reason and allows editors seven days to correct the problem. It specifically indicates an alternative to deletion, which may include obtaining rights to the material or rewriting the text and restoring w/o copyvio history. There is no urgency here and nothing really extraodinary. Furthermore, you (and some others here) are endorsing the close on the basis of copyright despite the fact that "copyvio" was not cited by the closer as a justification for the AfD outcome. I would point out that articles deleted as copyvios can be immediately restored in a non-copyvio version (and I assume that an admin would be willing to provide the page history as a courtesy to someone interested in restoring the article). --JJay 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per Silensor. If there were copyright violations, remove them as the law requires, but not the entire article. Yamaguchi先生 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If there were no non-copyvio versions, then taking out the entire article is what the law requires. The key word here is "derivative". Plus, given the verifiability issues, the articles for deletion were that much stronger than those for keeping it. As is so often said, if you're that concerned, rewrite the article from scratch yourself from Wikipedia:reliable sources. Chris cheese whine 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per Alansohn, JJay, etc. The article did indeed have multiple verifiable sources and there was absolutely no reason for this to have been deleted. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete sans any copyvio due to lack of consensus and strong verifiable evidence of notability. bbx 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin

Sorin Cerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New Info about Sorin Cerin.Translate Romanian Wikipedia and see the links there.The former article in english wasn't in accordance with reality and for that reason must to be re-edited.Cerin have published another four books/titles in Romania.L.Marchis 10:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse valid A7, no substantive content, list of apparently self-published books, links to subject's sites promoting same. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• RestoreWhy no substantive content and list of apparently self-published books?Sorin Cerin published Destiny for the first time in romanian language in 2003 to 'Editura Paco' where don't was self-published.After that published 'Destiny' in english,only in 2004.In 2004 ,Cerin published,Psycho,Apocalipsa and Exodus in romanian ,with the same publisher:Paco,where the books are not self-published.I know about confusion with Cerin.Everything is due to former english article from Wikipedia where Cerin was so called,"American writer".Cerin is not American writer,he is Romanian philosopher?When first book was launched to Romanian Literary Museum, and the romanian critic Paul Dugneanu said about Cerin:'Destiny is a philosophical,transcedental novel,not a literary...'and the launch was broadcasted by Romanian Television,TVR Cultural,etc.Cerin have been invited by another television ,Realitatea Tv ,in a talk show with Ion Cristoiu,on 8 January,2005,where talk about Psycho,Apocalipsa and Exodus,books of the year 2004.Many other romanian television talk about Cerin,who is well know in Romania.Cerin was journalist to 'Dreptatea'Newspaper,a Romanian National Peasants' Party,journal.He live Romania after miners riots from 1990 and choose United States.Another work of Cerin will find at
• [http://www.content.onlypunjab.com/profile/Sorin-Cerin/13169 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircia (talk • contribs) 08:40, November 29, 2006. User's only edit (UTC)

• This appears to be very hard to verify from an English-speaking perspective. 155.208.254.98 11:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and restoreSorin Cerin is very important and well know in Romania as philosopher and journalist.He was one of the re-founders of Romanian National Peasants' Party with Corneliu Coposu and many others members in 1990(see,Ziua,from November 14,1997).Between 1990-1999,Cerin have published many articles in newspapers,and television.Cerin have been invited in many TV and radio talk shows,from television like National,Realitatea Tv,Antena 1,to radio station like Europa Fm,Radio Romania Cultural,etc.The Cerin's books are well knows in Romania.He published two books in english.Virtualbookworm,the publisher who publish in 2006 'The origin of God' is not only self-publisher ,but traditional one,because they don't publish any garbage(see their site),and before publishing screen very serious the books.Again Sorin Cerin is philosopher and NOT writer with success story.In every place of the Earth,the philosophy don't have so much readers like love story or others .Sorin Cerin is very important Romanian philosopher and for that reason he must to be in english for overseas romanian who don't know well romanian and for other people who are interested in Cerin's philosophy.From english perspective ,Cerin's have many article of philosophy in english,because he is Romanian-American who live in New York.Alinaro 12:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC) User's first edit.
• Overturn and RestoreA very good question is:"from an English-speaking perspective" Cerin is in many language in Reader 2 who is a very important chanel to see the value of the books.Cerin was also many times in The Book Crossing and in another sites .From English-speaking?But why is available from German-speaking, French-speaking or Spanish-speaking?Because all is international languages very important,and cerein is an international philosopher.He cannot be only in Romanian,or only in one language so long his books are available all over the world.In German ,Cerin is available in english because he wrote in english.Please search about Sorin Cerin on Google or Yahoo,etc.Farkasn 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) User's second edit. The first was to add Sorin Cerin's birthday to November 25.
• Overturn and RestoreDoesn't matter how much work in editing the peoples from above.What is very important is if they said the true or not.Let see:

1)Is Cerin well know in Romania?Yes. 2)Have published 6 books,2 in United States and 4 in Romania?Yes. 3)Was invited for talk shows in Romanian national televisions?Yes. 4)Have references in media?Newspapers and others media sources?Yes. 5)Was invited in Romanian national radio stations?Yes. 6)Have published a lot of philosophical articles?Yes. 7)The Cerin's books have been sold all over the world?Yes. 8)Have references about notability ?Yes. 9)Was in Reader2 and Book Crossing?Yes. 11)Was journalist to 'Dreptatea'?Yes. 12)Wrote a lot of articles in media and newspapers?Yes. 10)So,the peoples from above said the true.Can be verify that?Yes.Translate Romanian Wikipedia.

Easy no?

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE, Notable attacks by the LTTE

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Notable attacks by the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Note: Per a request I ahve undeleted the history of Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE for the period of review; also, I have merged the discussions (original discussion on "notable attacks" is below the line) Guy (Help!) 14:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two thirds of the users voted to merge or keep the page. I cannot see why the adminstrator concerned went ahead and deleted it when only one third of the users had voted to delete it. Dutugemunu 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• It wasn't deleted. Another user redirected it to the wrong article. I've fixed the redirect, so this can be speedily closed. --Coredesat 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  No, Core, it was deleted. The page deleted at AFD (rife with sockpuppetry trying to keep their nice propaganda) was Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE (note the "the" and the capital "A"). Multiple pages were created. This is a fork of that page, that instead of being a list of 135 dates with an external link for each one is just 60 or so of them. Proto::type 09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  For clarity - variants of the deleted page were:

  • Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE
  • Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE
  • Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE
  • Notable attacks by the LTTE
  • Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE

  I've deleted all of them, via the above mentioned AFD. As this AFD closure will probably be reviewed, because it's a politicised issue, note that the AFD had 5 deletes, 5 keeps (4 disregarded as being blatant socks). The deletes were decent. The 5 keeps didn't even try and use Wikipedia policy to show why the article should be deleted, instead embarking on personal attacks on those voting 'delete' (and everyone's favourite "bad faith on part of nom"), and at least 1 is a known sockpupetteer, and the others only contribute to this and similar articles (usually getting warned about POV on a near-daily basis). Proto::type 10:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• reply the deletes were decent ?? proto, two of them were caught for sockpuppeting and you call them decent ??!! And 5 keeps didn't try to use wiki policy ?? Did you even bother to read our comments ?? This article had nearly 200 references, and satisfied every wiki policy.But did you read what the deletion side said ?? For me it was nothing more than a logical fallacy.What they say is "since some sources come from the GOSL this cant be true"!! ,inst this a WP:POV ? And you, without giving a valid reason,had deleted every thing ! even the ones which had non-government sources !! why ??--Iwazaki 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

• • Comment. Hi Proto, Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE and Notable attacks by the LTTE are 2 entirely different pages, There was an AFD for Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE but as far as I know there was no AFD for Notable attacks by the LTTE. So you have deleted an article for which there was no AFD. Also the Notable attacks by the LTTE page is not a fork because it predates Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE. I dont think there are more than 5 overlapping incidents between these two pages, so you really cannot use teh AFD for one page to justify the deletion of another page. Finally all the people who voted for deletion of Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE did so on the basis that the title is not neutral and that some incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. These reasons do not justify the deletion of Notable attacks by the LTTEbecause 1. No one complained about the title and 2. I dont think any of the incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. As for the Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE page , I saw only one user making personal attacks on the others. Are you saying all the merge and keep votes are sockpuppets. If I remember correctly at least 2 of the delete votes were accused of sockpuppeting. If I remember there were 4 merge votes, 5 deletes and 5 keeps. So the deletes were in the minority anyhow Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. Also Proto , you have used the word propaganda to describe the page. Do you mean the page is composed of lies Dutugemunu 11:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion: This article does not aim to preserve NPOV or simply anything at all. All the incidents it actually had were only some 100 odd external links and just date, time and external link. This is completely POV and is based on a no of Govt. of Sri Lanka citations, when it is one of the parties involved in this racial conflict. This is like looking up the Sudanese archives to write in an NPOV fashion against the Darfur crisis. This article conforms to advertising the govt of Sri Lanka as a noble, humanitarian agency when it has thousands of gross human rights violation cases against it, and this article is only being used to establish GoSL's supremacy by defaming the other party involved in the conflict. My final opinion, as an editor, who conforms to WP:5P would be to delete this article to bring back NPOV to the coverage of Sri Lanka in Wikipedia, as well as this specific article. Proto, my thanks to you for taking into account the credibility of the actual votes - sockpuppets, anon IPs and everything. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion: The article that was deleted broke every rule in wikipedia, including WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. It survived this long due to revert warring and move warring by a determined few sri lankan government supporting POV warriors. Elalan 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

Trinncomanb did the honorable thing and recused himself of his votes until the case is settled. Calling myself or Trincomanb or sockpuppet is a blatant contravention of WP:AGF. Elalan 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

**Comment. But two thirds voted either to merge the page or keep it. The deletes were in the minority. Are you saying all the merge and keep votes are sockpuppets. If I remember correctly at least 2 of the delete votes were accused of sockpuppeting. I dont think we shoudl delete pages simply because someone posts an AFD Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's patently untrue - I'm saying most of the 'keep' votes were either sockpuppetry or of dubious worth. There were, in total, 9 keep votes, of which 4 were definitely discounted, and 2 more were from sockpuppeteers or POV warriors. So you could say that three quarters voted to either delete the page or merge it. And as there was nothing other than external links to merge, the difference between merge and delete was minimal. Proto::type 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

The users who voted for merge asked for the Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to be merged with Notable attacks by the LTTE. Since you deleted both pages , you have actually gone against the merge and the keep votes combined. Certainly the merge voters didnt expect this page and the page they voted to merge it with ,both to be deleted. They expected the information to be merged , not to be entirely deleted. I would dispute the clain that these are no more than external links. Many Wikipedia users spent their time on creating these pages. Its not fair to just dismiss the work they have put into it. If content is lacking , you can wait for other users to add to it, not just delete the entire information Dutugemunu 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

overturn--Iwazaki 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment proto, you had made a few errors in judgement and counting. First, please go through the AFD again. Read all the points made by ME,iwazaki and others who voted to keep this. And please show me ,which is POV ?? And then go through those who voted to delete it(ONLY 4), and see The real POV .I think this may will be the most "biased" decision ever taken in wikipedia. The article is WP:NPOV WP:RS,And i have several times asked those who opposed this to single out any "unreliable incident" or "incidents which they think did not carry out by the LTTE",and didn't get a single reply. Also in the process I gave a link ,which clearly shows That the LTTE has carried out over 150 suicide missions during 1980-2000 !Surprisingly you have not seen any of this !! And for a little tirade directed at me, Please read the AFD and realise who started the "Personal Attacks" on the first place.finally, there were 9 keeps and 3 merges, only 4 deletes..None of those who stand for deletions made any "logical argument at all"!! if you have any problem with the citations, though we have given nearly 200 of it, I believe I'm now in a position to give you extra sources too.All the incidents in the article, did occur and did carried out by the LTTE. And none of the source is disputed.so I request you to reconsider your decision.

--Iwazaki 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment you are quite certain that,most of the keep votes are sockpuppets , so could you please elaborate who are those users ? While using this as one of the excuses to delete this article, you have failed to realize that the only people found for sockpuppeting were the ones who voted "To delete" this. !!--Iwazaki 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Iwazaki, even if nothing's proved, the fact is that all the keep votes were by people so intimately connected to the issue (not that some of the deletes weren't as well), that they were all emotional keeps, not reasoned ones. The comments you made all through the AfD, including links to graphic images of dead or injured Sinhalese just goes to show how much this is an emotional issue for you. Now, you keep saying we haven't shown which claims are not true, and you think this shows that those for delete are the ones who aren't making reasoned votes, but the fact of the matter really is, no matter how hard you deny it, that a letter written by the Government of Sri Lanka is not a neutral source. Proto has also noted above that there's really nothing reliable to merge to the other article, so the merge votes have to be considered some kind of weak delete. Think of the delete as having been a merge--all mergable material was merged. This article clearly should have been deleted. It goes against WP:RS, WP:POV, and probably half a dozen other Wikipedia policies. The problem is that AfD is a very bad place for such a decision to be made, since it invites decisions to be made on the basis of who can scream louder; Tamils or Sinhalese. Proto made the right decision. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Isn't it patronizing to say that the people who voted for merge didnt know the difference between a merge and a delete Dutugemunu 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. First, Government of Sri Lanka is not the only source. There are many references from different sources for these articles. For the incidents sourced from Gov. Sri anka do you deny these incidents happened. The US listed the casualties from September 11. According to your logic, these people didnt die but the US is making them up because it is the victim of these attacks. I suppose you are waiting for Al Quada and US to jointly agree on what happened. Please dont confuse the functions of a democratically elected government. Any comparisons with Sudan are not acceptable because Sudan is not a democracy and it is regarded as an international pariah state while Sri Lanka is a democracy and a legitimate member of the international community . Dutugemunu 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• 'reply to Osgoodelawer'. You have condemned every "keep vote"as an emotional vote ?? May i kindly asked you why ?? All the keep voters and merge voters gave valid reasons and you call them emotional voters ?? Yu have also stated not all the delete voters were emotional ??!! Yes, since only 2 out of 6 were caught for "sockpuppeting" you mat be technically right.But haven't you noticed who actually voted for the deletion?? , a couple of LTTE sympathizers and of course, you .So all the delete votes were either emotional or biased(I have shown your double standard regarding this issue).Hence according to your logic, shouldn't we ignore the "delete" vote completely ??!!. Actually there were few others flaws in your comment,and for the benefit of all i have listed them below.

1 All the keeps were emotional and NOt all the deletions were emotional

*answer per above

2 iwazaki is emotional because he's giving links to dead people

I was giving evidences !! The photos are of dead people, because they were "massacred" by LTTE.This is nothing about being emotional. This is all about being encyclopedic..I gave the evidences to back up our claims , and you ??? absolutely nothing ! And did you noticed ,there was even a BBC link in the article !! Well, you were hasty in making your decision ,and i supposed you didn't even bother to read that.

3 GOSL article is not neutral

This is the core of your argument.And this comment alone is overwhelmingly WP:POV ..AND a classic"Logical fallacy". People of Sri Lanka are victims here and these are not even combat incidents.These are cold blooded murders of innocent people and any government of the world has right to complain about it.Totally WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Except calling it unreliable, you have done no effort to examine the details written in the letter nor your have questioned any single incident there.Unless you cant find any contradictions in the letter, all your claims would become rather pointles

4 GOSL is unreliable but others aren't

Just because GOSL is engaged in a war against LTTE, we cant dismiss every single claim made by the GOSL.We should take, every case carefully and analyze it thoroughly before making any conclusions.This is how a encyclopedia works !!

Encyclopedia is not a place where you can have a worst case "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque". If i use your logic or i would say fallacy, then i or anyone can dismiss almost everything !! There wont be a wikipedia anymore !!

5 merges are weak delete votes

This is a hypothetical assumption !! I just went through it, and none of them said any thing like that all !! Even one merger said, "The incidents I checked seem to have a reliable source" . So the mergers were in fact weak keeps

.And you seemed to,once again, engaged in a mysterious logic.i don't know what do you mean by "scream loudly".were you referring tothis. An excellent example of wasting server space for "cheap political attacks on a democratic nation" .

And finally, i request all the relevant administrators to revert this decision as it is not only flawed but also self-contradictory. Please bear in mind that no one has ever questioned any of the stated incidents.So there is no question that these incidents did occur and LTTE had a hand on it.Hence the decision to delete is flawed !thank you--Iwazaki 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tire of your inability to understand Wikipedia policy and proper logic (your pretty Latin doesn't get you anywhere). The article is clearly unencyclopedic for so many different reasons. Even if all the votes were for keep, it still had to be deleted. An RfC that included only those well-versed in Wikipedia policy and who weren't emotionally connected to the topic on either side would clearly have found for deletion. Does that mean I think other pro-LTTE articles should not also be deleted? Absolutely not. Both the GoSL and the LTTE (and its sympathizers) are both unreliable sources--whether I give you examples or not aside. Some sources clearly are too close to the issue to be trusted. I understand you do not believe this and think every statement from the GoSL is reliable until proved not. You, however, are wrong. And that's simply that. But I have other things to deal with on Wikipedia. I'm not a one-issue man like you, and so I bow out of this discussion. Wikipedia policies will prevail regardless of whether we continue to argue the same points over and over. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, one of the administrators has deleted the Notable attacks by the LTTE even though there was no AFD on it. He has justified his deletion by saying it is a fork of a page (Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE) which has an AFD. However Notable attacks by the LTTE predates Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE so it cant be a fork of Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE . There is no or little overlap between the incidents described in each page. Notable attacks by the LTTE describes military attacks while Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE describes attacks on civilians. Even the people who have voted for deletion on the AFD for (Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE have given 2 main reasons , that much of the material is from the Sri Lankan government and that the title contradicts NPOV. These reasons do not apply to the Notable attacks by the LTTE because I dont think any of the material is from Sri Lankan government and because no one objected to the titleDutugemunu 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• The original deleted article is at Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) if anyone is interested, deleted by Proto per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  Also note the identical discussion already being carried out below. Proto::type 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I just need to know why you thought the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE applied to Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Almost all people who voted for deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE did so on the grounds that many incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. However at Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) almost all the incidents are sourced from Amnesty, BBC, CNN etc:- Dutugemunu 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  "Almost all people who voted for deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE did so on the grounds that many incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government." - not true. "all the incidents are sourced from Amnesty, BBC, CNN etc" - also untrue. Proto::type 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I said "almost all the incidents are sourced from Amnesty, BBC, CNN etc". I meant sources other than the Sri lankan government were mainly used for Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I remember that at least 3 (possibly 4) of the users who voted for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE did so on the grounds that many incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. So the votes for the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTEcannot be used to delete Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because their justifcation for deletion does not apply to Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If you restore the AFD I can give you and exact count of those who wanted to merge and those who wanted to delete and why tehy wanted to delete. Dutugemunu 13:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the deletion of the above mentioned article is a big mistake by some admin. It is the terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE that is a fork of Notable attack attributed to the LTTE. The Notable attack article is properly referenced and it does not violated WP:NOT, or WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:V, how do we restore it ?RaveenS 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I also want to second Raveen's statement on this. Notable attack was well referenced and wasn't up for deletion. The deletion of that article I think was an honest mistake. The article in question "Terrorist Attacks attributed to the Ltte" was the one up for deletion. I also second what Proto has said. He is telling the truth. I have been watching from the sidelines and even admins such as Osgoodelawyer and Proto are being mercilessly attacked by these pro govt POV warriors. There is no level of decency in their attack , which are mostly personal. I am also testament to this situation. Elalan 14:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe I have made an error - I've restored Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (and its associated redirect, Notable attacks by the LTTE, although that may be a POV title). If any of the people involved do wish to send that through AFD, it's a seperate issue, and one I'll recuse myself from entirely. Proto::type 14:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Gay Nigger Association of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

The article was deleted too soon before a real discussion could commence (and this was the 18th deletion debate for a contentious page). The article was AFD'd on the 26th and deleted early on the 28th. At the very least the article should be undeleted and a new AFD should be started or the old one restarted. TrollHistorian 06:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, possibly Speedy close. Valid AfD, there were a LOT of verifiability concerns brought up and none of the keepers had much to say besides that there were lots of previous AfDs. After literally years of sitting around unverified, it's not coming back. Let it rest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There were plenty of primary sources. I don't think you'd see a lot of secondary sources with a http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28&action=edit&section=10group like this. You'll see people responding to what they did. Regardless their trolls were pretty well documented and those affected often wrote about it. They meet any metric of notability from Alexa rankings to Google rankings. What the article needs is secondary sources. To delete and protect is pretty insulting because it doesn't even allow the article to improve and it doesn't allow us to actually add anything. Seeing as it was deleted over the period of 2 days. --TrollHistorian 06:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alexa rank was in the 250,000 range, and Google has 127 unique hits, neither of which are even close to high enough for an article. More importantantly, there wasn't a single Reliable source. There is no way such a fundamentally unverifiable article could be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• It was valid. Simply, articles need reliable sources. This one had zero reliable sources, and the comments in the AfD reflected that. All of the AfDs since July 2005 were speedily closed based on it have been nominated before. That is, there hasn't been a real AfD on this that could possibly be considered precedent since July 2005, in which the AfD was closed by someone who was or was previously a member of the "group", and many of the keep reasonings were still "there have been so many other AfDs on this subject". Most of the past AfDs were like this; this one was pretty sound and the discussion and decisions have to be based on Wikipedia policy and article standards. Quite a peculiar case history though. —Centrx→talk • 07:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD per Centrx. 1ne 07:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Discussion was clearly heading for a consensus of delete. Keeping it open another three days would have made it more so, but achieved nothing else – Gurch 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - In short, Centrx and Starblind have it summed up perfectly. There is no way whatsoever we can source this article, and that is a core policy, we can't go breaking that now can we?. Most previous AfD's have been full of sockpuppetry and seriously, this was like the ESP MfD, we could let it go on longer but all it would really give us is more trolling and not much more meaningful discussion. -- Tawker 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was an extremely skillful application of ignoring the waiting period rule on AfDs. Needless to say, this should only be done in the rarest of rarest of cases. theProject 07:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• It shouldn't have been speedy closed, and I rather suspect the main reason that it was is that Tawker wanted to be the one that finally got to Push The Button. (I can hardly blame him; I'd been refraining from a "Delete per all the misguided keeps above" for similar reasons.) That said, there's really no point in reopening this unless someone comes forward with a source that's reliable (i.e., not a blog), nontrivial (i.e., more than a sentence-long mention in the middle of an article about something else entirely), and independent (i.e., not created by a member). Endorse deletion. —Cryptic 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion per Centrx, the reasoning behind the AfD close was valid. Even looking beyond that, the "group" does not come close to meeting any policy or guideline (per Starblind), especially verifiability with reliable sources. Further, some of the keep arguments were forged, and the vast majority of them offer no actual reasons to keep the article (one edit summary reads "keep, because."). --Coredesat 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn & relist - AfD closed after only 2 days, hence out of process. If consensus is to delete it after that fine, but an article that survived 17 previous AfD's deserves to run its full course. VegaDark 07:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe the matter's been brought up that a large majority of those AfD survivals were speedy keeps and did not allow for any discussion. theProject 16:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is what makes this speedy close that much more wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion is clearly warranted per WP:V and WP:RS and re-opening the debate is inappropriate per WP:SNOW. Eluchil404 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW is really the inappropriate point here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion per TheProject. The fact that there were 18 previous AfDs showcases how WP:IAR is required. Danny Lilithborne 08:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Gurch. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: This was the only AFD I've seen that was not a "OMG THIS GROUP IS BAD WHY DOES WIKIPEDIA HAVE AN ARTICLE FOR IT?" reason for deletion, as several others were. This was done in process, although it was closed early, but it was a definite delete.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and allow to complete its full course. I guess i'm just crazy... but you know we have policy for a reason. AFD has a timeframe for a reason... its not a to be closed on a whim process. Hell I hate the GNAA as much as the next guy considering they made death threats on my home phone! But even I can see this was done entirely out of process. I've no doubt if it had run its course the final result would have been a keep (just like the previous umpteen times). This early closure sets a bad precedent... can an admin just close an AFD when the side he likes is winning? Are people allowed to just keep submitting stuff on AFD until they get a result they like? I for one dont think this result is going to improve our steadily tarnishing image.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I've got the "process is important" userbox on my page, but even I'm willing to concede IAR here. The article fails inclusion standards at a core policy level. Unless that changes, it doesn't matter how many !votes for Keep arrived. That it still fails inclusion under those standards after 17 other AfDs does not indicate that we should give this three more days; it indicates that previous AfDs were not all processed properly (indeed, several seem to me to have been intended simply to ratchet up the counter to increase inertia in its favor). The best way to improve our "steadily tarnishing image" is to hold articles to the rules of inclusion, not to give this thing another 3 days to attract meatpuppetry. Serpent's Choice 09:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid (and inevitable) deletion debate. The only point in relisting is either drawing out the ineviatble or grasping at straws. --Calton | Talk 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion and salting. WP:SNOW and WP:IAR were well applied, as not a single 'keep' was valid in either policy or common sense. Well done to Tawker. The fact that the article went through 17 prior AFDs is not evidence that Wikipedia should have kept the "article"; it's an example of how easily SiGs and forum trolls get away with manipulating Wikipedia process and gullible admins to retain their garbage. Proto::type 10:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The debate was admittedly open for a short time, though there was more discussion than most seven-day debates, and the arguments were compelling. No new information had been presented by either side; the administrator closing the debate had seen all the original arguments. Unless new information can be presented which would significantly affect the decision, the debate should remain closed. —Psychonaut 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The only way to make this nonsense end is to stop closing these early. The early closes have no basis and only end up muddying the water. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse dleetion, long overdue. Historical problems with trolling and puppet theatre render AfD substantially unusable for this subject. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think after several years of debates, at least one reliable source would have popped up. Most of these debates degenerated into trolling and sockpuppets. --Wafulz 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Closing the AfD before the arguments were even heard is dishonest at best. Please leave some time to answer. For instance, NeoFreak's points have not been addressed. Sam Hocevar 14:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nobody would provide WP:RS, deleted per no verifiablity. Only contention about this deletion is that people didn't want it to end that way. Open a short time yes, but clearly many people participated. If anyone asks me for an example of WP:IAR being used for it's designed purpose, then I will use this closing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I agree with Sam Hocevar's statement. This is typical Wikipedia administrator privilege abuse that I have become aware of in the last few months. As well, having been an IRC user for many years I've fallen victim to many of the GNAA's pranks and anybody who has not lived under a rock for the last few years would have heard of some of their trolls, perhaps even fallen victim to their trolls themselves. I can see why this might breed resentment in people, however, that does not mean that the article should be deleted. ContivityGoddess 14:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Deletion Long overdue indeed per JzG's point above; those voting keep relied almost exclusively on the fact that it had survived a large number of earlier AfDs, ignoring both the outcome of the early ones and the fact that subsequent ones were usually speedily kept on a misapplication of the snowball principal. No valid arguments were made for keeping this, which clearly fails a long list of notability and verifiability guidelines. Protect from recreation. Eusebeus 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn as somebody who didn't participate in this deletion, but was concerned that it would get out of hand, I see this speedy closure as a sign of abuse on the closing admin. It should not be endorsed. If you can't wait five days to get something done, then you that is your problem, and should not be used as a reason to violate standing procedure where there is a clear ongoing discussion. Consensus is not reached by the first person to act. Now personally, I don't think a convention AfD is the way to go with this issue anyway. 18 nominations? It shows to me there's a problem of deep severity, and this needs to be handled elsewhere. Not with some dirty, deeply suspicious deletion. Frankly, I think the closing Admin should be reported and investigated. Mister.Manticore 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you believe that three more days would have added any more substantial information to the discussion? Keep in mind that the article was around for years without a single independent source, which was largely the result of hasty or misguided closures in favour of keeping the article. --Wafulz 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't care whether the outcome would have changed, I care that the established procedure was grossly violated. Was it really worth saving three more days, just to cause yet more ill-feelins? Mister.Manticore 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not an anarchy. We can throw policy pages at each other all day, but that doesn't invalidate the complaint that acting so precipitously creates an impression of unfairness. Mister.Manticore 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

• Weakly endorse deletion. In the AfD discussion I originally said "keep per WP:SNOW", but I added this before reading the AfD, figuring that it was yet another non-serious request designed to game the system. I would have taken it back had the AfD not closed so quickly. The points raised in the AfD, in my opinion, were all valid, specifically the fact that the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. Although seventeen failed AfD's is hard to argue with, the article has had plenty of time to find valid sources. _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I was surprised and a little concerned by the quick close, but Tawker is right that longer discussion would have added little while steering the discussion into a trollish quagmire. The major points had been made on both sides, and the keep voters did not make much of a case despite much prompting. bikeable (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two days, in this case, was sufficient to generate a high enough volume of commentary for a clear consensus to form, and one did. Early closing just spared us another few days of hooting and hollering. --Robth^Talk 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • AfDs are not just about volume. They're also about giving the opposition enough time to mount a defence. I've seen several cases where the article about something that was obviously notable was deleted far too early (granted, the articles stank and didn't have clues about the thing's notability, but the topics were notable) I agree, it may be a bit silly to demand that, but we must use equally fair things. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The typical "defense" of the GNAA page was massive puppetry. The most productive defense of an article is to fix it, and they have had two and a half years to find reliable sources on the subject. There are none. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep, but I'm not questioning the quality of the defence either. What I'm saying is "We left the deletion debate open for the required time, we let people have their say for the allotted time, then we closed it exactly as required in the policy - just like every other AfD debate. So why are we complaining?" Yes, the prolonged debate just generates anon-flood crap. No, it won't change the end result. Yes, everyone's happy with the result we have now. But someone from outside of Wikipedia saying we didn't follow our own rules, which means we need to defend our policies every time someone brings this up. Okay, maybe I'm just a little bit too paranoid about our reputation. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Yes, I'm obviously crazy to suggest the article should return, and I'm not going to win friends with this proposition either, but seriously, what can possibly be so hard about conducting the AfD in a proper fashion? The early closure kind of smelled like "darn, we panicked." So here's what I propose: Overturn, relist, let it run the whole period of time this time, refactor the debate for readability (and move inevitable long offshoot discussions to talk page), and after that time, close it. I don't care if there's problems counting the heads properly at the end. Form an emergency committee of admins, or whatever. Then, a procedural Deletion Review to make sure that got done right. Note, however, that I'm not suggesting this will change the outcome, or that I'm contesting the results of this particular AfD; all I'm asking is that this AfD is conducted with all of the proper ceremony required. I hope everyone agrees this is an exceptional situation, and exceptional situations need extra care. Closing the debate early just makes people cry for blood. So, one more time, with all of the policies and guidelines conveniently at hand. That way, we won't let anyone to cry for blood afterwards. In short, "If you're AfDing something that ought to be dead, and need 18 tries, and the last one was clearly closed too early, something is fishy." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and I just add that, despite of the above, I'm not complaining if this deletion is endorsed, as long as this DRV is carried out properly. At least that will let me counter "omg Wikipedia deletion process sucked when they finally deleted GNAA" with "...well, sucked or not, that result was found valid in another process." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to join in this discussion, but this made me chuckle: "what can possibly be so hard about conducting the AfD in a proper fashion?" For one answer to that, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (6th nomination) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (6th nomination). Uncle G 20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, seems I can't convey emotions these days. I wasn't saying this as an innocent, clueless query; it was intended as a rhetorical question, similar to one asked by a drill sergeant after the recruit fails to do something correctly for the 18th time. Though, I tend to yell a little bit less. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And another comment: Please don't give the GNAA the bragging rights for inspiring the creation of "Wikipedia:Deletion review review". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There were no reliable sources, and after two years of existence, with 17 AfDs, three more days would not have changed that. There is nothing anyone could have contributed that was not already mentioned, so the only result of extending it would be a mob of WP:IKNOWIT and WP:IHATEIT votes, which are entirely useless. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Unreliable sources, not notable, promo. It's time to finally lay this to rest. --Improv 16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Per above. I had no idea this was deleted... bout damn time... Wickethewok 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorese deletion. Look, we're all tired of this article, OK? 18 freaken nominations. What a waste of resources. I don't care if the closing was in order or not, keep deleted and salted per WP:IAR and the general principle of "Make it go away, Daddy!" Herostratus 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and finally end this sad chapter of Wikipedians being easilly duped into including unverifiable gunk that no one but Wikipedia would write about. --W.marsh 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as I said on the AfD no reliable secondary sources no Wikipedia article. User:Whispering 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The GNAA were not given enough time to load up their sock puppets in order to skew the results. This is another outrageous abuse by the Wikipedo admin's.MenciaMadness 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

— MenciaMadness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (UTC).

• Endorse deletion although I would have preferred the AfD had gotten its full five-day run. No reliable sources were added since the previous round, and none were offered in the discussion, which garnered a lot of comments and appeared to reach a consensus among editors whose reasoning indicated any understanding of WP's policies. Barno 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no sources = not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn & relist - I am uncomfortable with the idea of closing the 18th AFD discussion early as a delete. Guettarda 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and continue listing for 3 more days This article should have been deleted a long time ago. I'm glad that its been nominated again, but I don't like WP:IAR and I don't think WP:SNOW quite applies here, so I'm going to have to recommend a continuance of the discussion. Bwithh 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article was unsourced and unverifiable, and should've been deleted long ago. This AfD page got to be huge after just two days; keeping it open longer would've done nothing more than attract more puppetry. WarpstarRider 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist from scratch, both the 18th nomination and this review are now tainted. Is there a reason we don't have the {{Drv}} template on the Gay Nigger Association of America article to notify people that this backdoor discussion is taking place? Why was the talk page edit protected? Why was the discussion closed early? Silensor 22:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment use of the {{Drv}} template is unusual, so non-use of it is no taint. (Although personally I wish it was used more often.) There is a criteria for speedy deletion to delete the talk page of an article already deleted, so that isn't a problem either so far as I know. I don't see any process issues with the deletion review. GRBerry 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment no, what is unusual is having a talk page deleted and subsequently protected, and not having a a {{Drv}} template to redirect our contributors to in the event they would like to participate in an ongoing debate. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any other examples of such a tainted deletion process. Silensor 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It's not necessary to add {{Drv}} in this case, since the page was protected. There's a link to DRV on the {{deletedpage}} tag. --Coredesat 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Ack Improv. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Most of the sourcing of the article was provided by me and others during the course the article was going through FAC in 2005. Most of the sources, that I found, were IRC logs, forum postings, stuff from the GNAA website or from random pages. That is the best I could come up with. However, as with most of the sources I mentioned, they can go away, be edited or have no claims of validity. I can edit forum posts without people knowing and a whole lot of other things I can do. I had no regrets working on the article, but I believe that even at the best state of the article, many still believe it fails verification. Frankly, I agree. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• The article lacked reliable sources. An exhaustive search on LexisNexis from all available dates and categories returns no matches, trivial or otherwise, and the primary sources within the article failed our standards for verifiability. Given the contentious nature of the subject and its record number of previous deletion discussions, this isn't something I would've suggested closing early, but the conclusion still remains valid. Relisting for another 3 or 5 days will not change this, so I endorse deletion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's important to note that this is only about the second or third time that an AFD was for real (in fact, many of the prior AFDs were trolling by GNAA members. In a legitimate attempt to delete the article, where sourcing and verifiability issues were still not yet met, I endorse this deletion. Ral315 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for the same reliable source issues given above and in the afd. shotwell 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The reliable source issue cannot be ignored. Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I endorse the outcome of this AFD. Here in the nerd world, some of us may have heard of GNAA (or the Slashdot readers amongst us, anyway), but out in the real world, it's a nothing, and there's nothing verifiable that can be said about it. If I'm putting myself on a GNAA hitlist for this opinion ... then so be it. --Cyde Weys 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. All the reasons for a delete and salt seem to be simply that the article is poorly written. If it is poorly written then it simply need to be written again. Deleting it and protecting the page to prevent recreation is not encouraging the wikipedia community, but rather acting like children who want to kick someone out of their special club. This is wikipedia, not the playground. If the article is bad, then mark it for improvement and see if writers come out to provide more sources. If they do not, then market AfD and let the full process run its course. An AfD in 2 days is simply absurd.Qapf 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If the article is crap after over two years then there's no helping it. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand the deletion argument at all... Wikipedia articles are written on reliable sources, not just on forum posts and chat logs, and there's nothing more than that here. A truly reliable, good article is impossible. Even the people who've cited the current sources have said as much. --W.marsh 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Good and brave call. Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undecided. Reliable sources... reliable sources... The GNAA had an article in The Scotsman [5] last year with coverage that I would consider more than just "trivial", so should I infer then that all of those who have endorsed above consider this to be a non-reliable source? My main concern here is that these verifiability standards are not being applied even handedly. RFerreira 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • However when you actually look into it, the main source of the Scotsman article is actually... the unreliable Wikipedia article. So in that context it's not very reliable at all... they sometimes write articles on Wikipedia drama using the Wikipedia article as the source. --W.marsh 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are citing an article in the Scotsman that uses Wikipedia as its sole source on the GNAA! Not reliable, not independent, totally circular. That's the danger of having unreferenced material in Wikipedia, it gets reproduced everywhere as if it were factual. - Nunh-huh 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how I read the article. If you can cite something which actually proves that Wikipedia was used as the sole source of their article, I will gladly endorse this deletion straight away. The Scotsman does link to some Wikipedia pages, but I was not under the impression that it was used as their primary source. RFerreira 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What, then, in your impression, is the article's source? - Nunh-huh 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that I'm not going to go about assuming what they were. If irrefutable evidence can be presented that Wikipedia was the sole source of their article, you have my endorsement. RFerreira 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Other than the link to Wikipedia, the Scotsman article is unsourced. - Nunh-huh 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you've contacted and confirmed this information with the writer of this article and their editing staff, you really have no place to say that. RFerreira 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable authors cite sources they use. Reliable authors don't cite sources they haven't used. You are seeking to salvage the Scotsman article as a source by claiming that its author cited a source he didn't use, while concealing sources he did use. That in and of itself would make him an unreliable author. - Nunh-huh 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You can stop with the baseless accusations now. Like it or not, most newspapers and magazines do not disclose their references in print. Does that mean we should start excluding them as sources from Wikipedia? Take for example The New Yorker [6] a magazine which features several prize winning authors; none of their articles include sources, but that sure as hell doesn't mean they're an unreliable source or are somehow practicing bad journalism. Wikipedia even credits them for being well known for their "rigorous fact checking and copyediting", yet I don't see a source cited for that.  ;-) RFerreira 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any accusations. I stated a fact: The article you point to provides no source other than Wikipedia for its information about GNAA. It also provides very little information about the GNAA, other than that they are insecure crapflooding white kids who have worries about their own orientation. - Nunh-huh 03:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was not a source in the article. It was a link to provide further information to the reader. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If we're going to take our verifiability policy seriously, we need to be prepared to make these sorts of decisions. Chick Bowen 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Bad Faith Nomination. 70.59.138.245 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Bad faith nomination? Of all the process reasons one could name, I can't really see how this AfD was made in bad faith. It clearly stated it was attempting to achieve a consensus after only about ten or so speedy keeps. theProject 03:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that calling for a relist because the nomination was "bad faith" doesn't make much sense at all. WarpstarRider 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Yikes. I was waiting to close this one, I think it was closed way too early, but it was a proper deletion. Yanksox 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Relist' - to have a full 5 day discussion. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is an interesting thread on the lists for your reading enjoyment -- Tawker 04:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Slightly out of process but certainly what should have happened. Almost everything on the article was WP:OR using unreliable sources. About time this got removed. If they every actually meet WP:WEB then we should consider a recreation. Not before that. JoshuaZ 04:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, shucks, I missed it; but endorse deletion per WP:PR. I suggest a copy in WP space, however. This will mean:
  • We can say, when a new article appears, and it will, "it wasn't sourced in November, and it isn't now."
  • Future Wikipedians will know what this nonsense was about. Septentrionalis 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per Alkivar, Badlydrawnjeff (and others); the policy of having a set period for AFDs is there for a reason. And there is atleast one reasonably-claimed reliable source (the Scotsman article), so speedy-closing based on WP:RS seems a bad idea. If there are in fact no reliable sources, it'll still be that way after 5 days and it can be closed then. Mairi 07:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• WP:V problems in any article means the default option changes from keep to delete automatically. Best keep argument was "This means we won't have a 19th nomination". Counting the support for the nomination for my personal evaluation, I reached 32 "me toos" on that one argument alone. I think that if I counted all the arguments (most of them are based on WP:RS, so qualify as "strong"), I could be looking at double figures for delete, and a big fat 0 for keep. Maybe 2-3 points if one of the keep arguments qualifies as "weak" rather than "non-issue". Endorse wholeheartedly. Without a doubt, if you asked people to name a troll organisation, GNAA tops the list by a country mile. Unfortunately, their exploits just aren't written about in the places we need them to be. Or should that be "fortunately"? Never mind. Chris cheese whine 11:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, and good riddance. - Mike Rosoft 13:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• comment - I agree with deletion, but this shouldn't have been closed early. That said the only keep in all of these AfDs were the early closed 5th and the only deletes in the later overturned 3rd and the recently early closed 18th --T-rex 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist as per Alkivar's arguments. There are a lot of articles with unsourced statements but we don't delete the entire article because parts of it need citations. Perhaps it would be better to remove unsourced statements rather than throwing away the entire article. The fact that this was closed early is an affront to the principles wikipedia stands for, namely, drawn out discourse in the interest of making everybody at least a little happy, as opposed to keep re-nominating GNAA until a consensus for delete is reached. Keep the thing open more than two days, you cowards. -Ich (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the point being made was that if you took out all the unsourced material, you get more or less a blank page. We have to remove unourced material. WP:V is not negotiable and not subject to consensus. Chris cheese whine 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the article needed reliable sources. Just as with this one, other articles have the opportunity to cite references for unsourced statements; in more than two years no reliable sources have been provided. —Centrx→talk • 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist : procedural violation. `'mikkanarxi 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. One silly trolling group and source issues. This is a fairly acceptional case of an article of dragged out existence and I'd rather not focus on very strick procedure adherence. What importance this topic has is just feedback loop from it being here and mirrored anyway.Voice-of-All 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Mikkalai has reverted the close of the AfD even as this discussion is ongoing. I reverted his open and he has reverted me. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but believe his actions are the inappropriate actions of an admin involved in a dispute. I will bring this up at WP:ANI.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe (talk • contribs) .

  I am absolutely shocked with an endorsement of admin's abuse. `'mikkanarxi 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist per above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per identical logic that saw the Encyclopedia Dramatica article deleted. No WP:RS, not notable, not verifiable. This article has no doubt survived due to numerous editors operating out of vanity which is also grounds for deletion. (→Netscott) 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of this offensive article. About time it gets deleted, the ED case should have created a precedent... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for the simple reason that two days are not enough to discuss such an AFD. Note that I voted am in favour of deleting the article, but just because I agree with the result doesn't mean that I agree with throwing our process out of the window for no apparent reason. --Conti|✉ 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse while this probably should not have been closed early the bottom line is that this article is not verifiable from reliable sources and I'd wager good money it was not going to suddenly get sourced in the next couple of days. In 18 deletion discussions, nobody has ever once produced a reliable source. Talk of Google hits and Alexa rankings is absolutely meaningless. The day reliable sources are found, this article could be recreated, but right now it has no justification for being here. 3 more days wouldn't change that.--Isotope23 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Given the ridiculous number of past AFDs for this article, would it be possible to restore the list of past AFD nominations to Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America, then re-protect? It'll save a lot of people headaches if we ever need to revisit this for some reason. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Tawker deleted Template:GNAA-AfD which attempts to give a (lkely incomplete) record of past nominations; I have restored the template since it's not obviously "pointless". Kimchi.sg 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse per Jimbo. ---J.S^(T/C) 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if the lack of sources was really an issue, maybe someone should've added the tag to the page rather than putting it up for VfD... Dominotree 07:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid closure according to policy. Tizio 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• 100% Endorse Deletion - the article didn't have any reliable sources. Regardless of its notability - unless there are verifiable, reliable sources, it should not be here. Why should we ignore long standing policy because people 'have heard of it'?-Localzuk^(talk) 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Jimbo, only valid interpretation of policy. Letting it run would not have caused anyone to bring up some genuinely credible sources, because if that was possible they'd be doing it here, and they're not. And let's face it, the chances of that happening after so long are nil anyway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - if the delete lobby are so confident, it shouldn't have a problem with allowing due process. Also, rotectinga page to stop Wikipedians editing it is OTT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The delete arguments in the discussion repeatedly stressed that the article did not meat WP:V, while the Keep arguments in response did not address this point (leaning instead on "it's a real group" and "it's never been deleted before.") Andrew Levine 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This article has been giving "due process" many, many times and it still does not pass WP:V and is even borderline WP:NOT. Trolls and trolling organizations are not inherently notable and you would be hardpress to make an argument that GNAA would pass a 20 year test much less a 100 year test. If this article was about a band, a movie, a book, or even a political organization it would be chucked many moons ago for lack of encyclopedic merit and notability. This article has survived as long as it did for the wrong reasons and it is time to let it rest. 205.157.110.11 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn I saw a media account of their exploits on TV and they were mentioned in the Scotsman article, a reputable source. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue is if the process was proper. Arguments based on "but I don't like the arguments from delete people!" are not relevant. -Amarkov^blah_edits 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine, the Deletion was inappropriate because it ignored the fact that they were sources out there and that is why it should be overturned. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay then. That's a reason to overturn deletion. But the sources weren't ignored. That Scotsman article was a passing reference, and a TV appearance once without documentation somewhere is not verifiable. -Amarkov^blah_edits 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The television footage has been archived and is readily available, but how can an online video be cited as a source? Dominotree 07:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Beyond being a rather trivial mention in the Scotsman article (which wasn't specifically about GNAA) the article also appears to be heavily based on the information from the Wikipedia aritcle, which would sort of invalidate it as a reliable source anyway.--Isotope23 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per dozens of people above, and per Jimbo, and per the fact that, no matter how long the AfD stood, there was certainly a strong consensus. -- Kicking222 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look at the contributions on the page, there is a high volume of delete/redirect/merge contribs in the first 12 hours (24), then it drops down to 11 and 12 for the next chunks of 12 hours. On the contrary, the keep contribs reach a peak of 17 for the third period of 12 hours, then the AfD was closed. Hardly a strong consensus, and also very suspicious. How come no one mentions that? Sam Hocevar 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ooh, Conspiracy theory!! Maybe it just took the GNAA a while to rally their sockpuppets. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, loads of people saying "Keep, stop nominating this" or "Keep, WP:IKNOWIT" provides no consensus at all. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion. This article should have been deleted a long time ago, but, sadly, I think it became more of a running joke than a serious discussion. The closing administrator evaluated the discussion reasonably and made a correct decision. BigDT 02:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per everyone above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salt the earth. Not that I think there's much chance of keeping it deleted, but there just haven't been enough reliable sources to support an article, there's been more than enough time to do it, and things without reliable sources we have specifically chosen not to cover via WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per everyone. I may be biased as I'd never heard of these guys before -- Samir धर्म 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, should've been trashed long ago. Kimchi.sg 04:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion It was closed a bit fast, but not excessively so. The level of discussion was also high and had already become repetitive. Three more days would've simply resulted in an overly massive discussion that repeated points already made in the first two.--T. Anthony 05:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the first SEVENTEEN DISCUSSIONS. Someone was afraid history would repeat itself. Dominotree 06:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • First I'd additionally withdrawn my vote fearing conflict of interest. I'd be happy to strike it out if you wish. Second the article had been "speedy closed" and kept in many of the last AfD's. This was a more thorough discussion than a delete vote on this article has perhaps ever received. I had a feeling it would be "speedy kept" anyway no matter how the discussion went, but I was pleasantly surprised. Still if it was important you did have the time to copy the information and put it in an archive. Then if you found valid sources later you could try to recreate it. I started List of Roman Catholic Church musicians after the Catholic composers list was deleted and I'd found better sourcing.--T. Anthony 07:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn; Relist. Let's see, 18 AfD's and the last one is closed early. This smells like someone was afraid that they'd have to do a 19th. Really, it's petty. And I thought it was going to be open for more than all of two days so I put off voting until I had free time after work, and by then it was closed. Fishy and petty. -Ich (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

• Overturn; Relist. The fact that this article has been VfD'd eighteen times and survived seventeen is enough to prove it is noteworthy. It seems like people here are offended by the subject so they attempt to find any reason they can to hide behind to have it removed. If this is not the case, American Nihilist Underground Society should be VfD'd, as well as countless other pages. If you're going to VfD it, there's no point in waiting until there are enough votes to get the outcome you want and closing it early. That is just the same is making an arbitrary decision with no vote whatsoever. There is a reason there is a length on a VfD, and ending it early silenced many people including myself who would've been able to vote otherwise. Wikipedia is supposed to be about democracy and freedom of speech, but clearly many people in power here disagree. I think it was best put, "Are people allowed to just keep submitting stuff on AFD until they get a result they like?" Dominotree 06:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it says somewhere Wikipedia isn't a democracy. If you want to add information about GNAA to troll organization you may, provided the information is verified. As for the American Nihilist I was going to AfD when I read your post, but withdrew as it had been AfD'd just a month ago. Wait until I go back to full activity in January or until enough time has passed. (Whichever) Lastly I don't think the issue is controversy or anger at them. The last vote was mostly by people who have never dealt with them and saw the fact the article was using poor sourcing plus unverifiable claims. That the article had no notability as well. No one is going to delete Gay], Nigger, troll organization, or the Gay Men of African Descent(if they become wildly confused or are hateful) because of this.--T. Anthony 07:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Saying that this has "survived seventeen AfDs" is misleading at best; before this, there hadn't been a "real" AfD since around the 6th or so, and even those were sock-tastic messes. After that, the vast majority of them were simply trolling/vandalistic attempts intended to jack up the AfD count, along with an April Fools' Day joke nom. WarpstarRider 07:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Surely you can't call this one a real VfD either if you don't think any of the previous were valid. Dominotree 07:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • And why not? This has had plenty of participation, and wasn't hijacked by (too many) socks. Most of the previous nominations were on the grounds that the GNAA were trolls. This one was on the basis that the article isn't sufficiently verifiable. You can argue about the legitimacy of the GNAA until the cows come home, but WP:V trumps all. It is above the rest of our policies, and cannot be overturned in AfD or DRv by "consensus". (This is clearly stated on that page, btw.) Chris cheese whine 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Past AFDs don't necessarily mean anything; see WP:CCC. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn due to suspicious circumstances. — CharlotteWebb 07:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no suspicious circumstances here. A perfectly valid application of WP:SNOW. Chris cheese whine 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Nearly half of votes being keep is equivalent to a "Snowball's chance in hell"? I think not. Dominotree 07:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • By my count there was 45 deletes and 29 keeps. This is not a 2-1 margin, but it does mean over 60% of the voters voted delete. Twenty-nine is not "nearly half" of 74, not in the normal sense.--T. Anthony 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote. The arguments put forward by the keep !voters were not relevant, not grounded in policy, and generally stuff along the lines of "GNAA is notable" (references?), "18 previous keeps" (including the vandal nominations), "deletionism gone mad" (no such thing as "deletionism", ffs). Arguments put forward by the delete !voters were "can't verify this" (which was true) and "most of the links are to gnaa.us" (also true). Ultimatum put forward was "source it or die". Article couldn't be sourced, so it died. Nothing suspicious about that at all - it's a perfect embodiment of our deletion policy and process. Chris cheese whine 08:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • A 36-hours ultimatum is a perfect embodiment of the policy? You have to be kidding. Sam Hocevar 11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • 36 hours? The article has been there at least two years. I think there's been more than enough time to source the article. Chris cheese whine 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • This is off-topic. What's discussed here is the way the article was deleted. (Oh, and in two years no one came up and tried to remove unsourced material?) Sam Hocevar 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Deletion Even though I consider myself an inclusionist, the weight of the arguments fall on the deletion side and only a massive amount of sockpuppetry and pure vote counting could overturn that. In fact, looking at the previous AfD it is pretty clear that there was misrepresentation of the AfD process galore. There is no valid encyclopedic or WP policy reason to keep this article. It has spent years in it sorry state with no hope for improvement due to the lack content even available to write a quality article. The article will never pass WP:V or show even a glimmer of value to the project. At worse, it presence merely serves the purpose of making Wikipedia and our policies a joke. Agne 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This sort of uncalled-for application of WP:SNOW and biased editors and administrators are making Wikipedia a joke. Dominotree 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of WP:SNOW either but that still doesn't make up for the lack encyclopedic qualities in the article and its inability to pass the most basic of Wikipedia policies. AfD is not (and should not) be considered a vote so tallies are a pretty useless banner to wave. Now if you can find some reliable sources that can verify the article and demonstrate some redeeming qualities and encyclopedic worth, I will be one of the first to change my support. Agne 08:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So unsourced articles or articles based on un-reliable sources are less of a threat to Wikipedia's credibility than biased editors and administrators. Hmm. Kimchi.sg 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well it is your perception that there are "bias editors and admins" involved here and it is your perception of whether or not that bias is a negative. On the flip side, one could say the sock puppets and the GNAA suppporters are "bias". Is that bias negative? My bias is towards encyclopedic worth and the potential of the article to contribute something worthwhile to the projection. This article's inability to pass the most basic of Wikipedia's policies and to have multiple non-trivial sources is a severe lacking and anyone with a bias towards creating a quality encyclopedia should be against this article and any other article in a similar situation. Frankly, we need more of that kind of bias. Agne 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • As for the question asked, yes, unsourced articles are indeed less of a threat. Having less information than exists is far more credible than having more information than truly exists. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without question looking at the deleted article it lacked a single reliable source - in fact almost every reference cited was the GNAA website itself. Sorry, deletion is warranted at this time  Glen  08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Would the GNAA sleeper accounts please confine themselves to discussion here? We don't need the vandalism. Thanks. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: Back in the mists of time, when there was the very first AfD about GNAA, I voted to delete. I have not changed my mind, and I only voted in one of the re-runs. Essentially, if there are no names back there, no persons, then it is impossible to verify any fact about the site. Secondly, it is an organization that has no actual stable membership criterion, and therefore no operative character. Thirdly, the organization is a name rather than a thing. Can we have an article on a name? It's possible, if it then goes on to generate multiple 3rd party non-trivial discussion. Any time we're dealing with Internet ephemera, there is no way to have a biography or profile. This is in addition to the general vandal magnetism. Finally, if people against including this article sat on their hands with the multiple re-runs, or if they were supposed to, according to the advocates of the article, then those who are in favor of the article should also respect the process. Geogre 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly does all this have to do with reviewing the deletion process? Sam Hocevar 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You claim above that it should be overturned and relisted to waste yet more time because the arguments didn't get a chance to be heard. They're being heard now, and no one is making any effort to find reliable sources. Failing finding those, policy is that the article should stay deleted. There's really no point in process wonking for the sake of it, for once lets just go with whats best and follows our content policies. - Taxman ^Talk 00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close and deletion - at the time of closure, WP:SNOW seemed the appropriate call with the discussion heavily stacked in favor of the deletion. Sometimes it doesn't need five days to determine if it's time for the article to go.B.Wind 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Truly, this is an excellent example of why I keep railing against WP:SNOW. If this was closed properly, there would be absolutely no legitimate argument available. Instead, there's still a cloud. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW applies because no matter how many people voted keep, the WP:V policy cannot be trumpted by consensus. A reliable source could still be presented here but it has not. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)