Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (2nd nomination)

message: I have gone through a majority of the Vfd for this article.  Tony Sidaway had renominated and then changed vote to keep reluctantly. I do not fault him for this decision, as I am even considering bringing it back to Vfd, and personally do not want to become a target.  However, as in earlier Vfd's on topics such as University groups; although they were significant to the members at that Univ, did not make them notable on a world wide level. Most of the comments/votes that mentioned notabiltiy stated that "if you were on slashdot...", and many of the responses were even such as "I am on slashdot and not heard of them..".  Thats where I stand, I have used slashdot for many years, and can not readily say, that I have heard of them.  Whether or not I know of them, is not, and should not, be the point.
*Slashdot readers do not make up the whole of civilization, as University clubs do not, and even slashdot readers admit they havent heard of them.
*Membership consists of watching a movie, joining slashdot, and an IRC channel.
*They used trolls, sockpuppets, and vandalism to gain an advantage on Wikpedia:Vfd, this should not and does not substantiate notability. See: WP:NOT and Don't disrupt.
*They state that they are not racist, but having such a name is clearly intended to cause disruption.  This would be OK if they actually participated in changing the publics view on racism, however, they only did it to be disruptive, as they clearly state that they are inet trolls. Basically a name to ensure self notability on an aggravated level.
I feel this should go back up on Vfd, and closely monitored for sock puppets and vandalism. Have a fair and objective vote on what truely constitutes notability of this group and prove, without doubt, any accomplishments. No activity from slashdot should be included, as that would be part of the slashdot article, as at that point they are slashdot users, not GNAA. Trolling and vandalism on Wikipedia should not be counted as notable activity in the debate, as then we have to create an article "Anonymous Vandals", which is just as absurd. The really sad thing about previous Vfd's, are how many were tired of the process and gave into the consistent vandalism. If the Vfd was to be done correctly and unequivocally, and consensus was delete, then the page should be blanked and permanently protected.
Are there any objective, non-threating, useful comments, on the resubmission to Vfd?
<>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 05:49 (UTC)
:Suggest that you do not take this back to VfD. This has been decided three times already, the 3rd time was the final vote on the matter and we determined that the GNAA is significant enough to have an article. Placing it back on VfD could be seen as disruptive by many people (myself included). They do not only troll slashdot. As for no information about GNAA members trolling slashdot and originating there: why not? This is background and past history!!!! Trolling and vandalism on Wikipedia must be notable (vandalism on Wikipedia is a normal occurence) so agree with you there, though perhaps a one line notice that "they have vandalised Wikipedia" might be OK - after all, they have. 
:As for those who were tired of the process: sorry? They placed it on VfD three times and each time it was decided to 'keep? May I ask who is abusing the process? I also note that the 3rd time it was placed on VfD by someone who was not aware of previous VfD attempts. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 02:49 (UTC)
::There was never consensus to keep to keep this article, as there was never any consensus reached in any previous VfD.  The article simply defaulted to being kept.  Many people who voted "keep" in the last VfD simply assumed that the two were synonymous.  -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
:Trolling nonsense aside (we can fairly easily deal with that), GNAA has made such a nuisance of itself that many Wikipedians are unable to evaluate the notability at all (in both ways—some are by now convinced the GNAA isn't notable because it's trying to convince people it is).
:What's more, many are going to object to this VfD on procedural grounds. You are in fact arguing that all previous VfDs are invalid (since the article hasn't substantially changed). That's quite a claim, and I don't think many people will say "oh, of course, my previous Keep votes were invalid, I see that now". Then there are the inclusionists who truly want to keep the article because they don't care about GNAA's notability, just about the quality of the article. Notability as a whole isn't a criterion for deletion, and never will be, because we just don't see eye-to-eye on what is notable, and what level of notability is necessary to earn a place in Wikipedia. Some things we can all agree on are so obscure or dubious that Wikipedia shouldn't include them. GNAA has already established not to be such a thing.
:If you want my opinion: just don't do it. It's pointless. Many people are going to vote keep just because previous votes established a keep and nothing has changed since then. You'll need a very coherent, very strong argument to convince them, and it's not going to be "you have been trolled", true as it may be. Maybe the article will be deleted by a VfD someday, but I don't see it happening today. Of course, I could be wrong, and I guess only a VfD could prove that... JRM · Talk June 29, 2005 08:05 (UTC)
::I do value your opinion, as I do others. I also don't want to seem that I am invalidating the previous Vfd's, although you can see many of them just gave in to the vote.  I sometimes want to consider myself an inclusionist and/or even a merger, but the shear fact that this article was kept due to, shall we say, "brute force" tactics and pursuasion, only makes it notable on Wikipedia, not anywhere else.  I would have to agree that a nice looking and well formatted article would be a consideration, however there have been such articles that were just pure fiction; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alberto Sanchez. No matter how it looks, it should have a better definition than what its established itself as on Wikipedia in debate; example: (I rant and type and rant and type on Wikipedia, therefore I am). I agree with many of your points, and that is mainly why I brought it up here, so that it maybe discussed without the fuss of Vfd.  Thanks for replying.  <>Who?¿? 29 June 2005 09:35 (UTC)
:::Noone forced a gun to the voters' head and made them vote keep. If those voters feared repurcussions, they should not have voted or should have had the guts to vote delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 02:53 (UTC)
::::Without being sinical I merely pointed out that comments from the last Vfd, were of a nature of tiresome of the topic, and had a "we've been trolled, and lost" theme. I believe it was even mentioned a few times in similiar words. I merely raised the discussion of the results of the, yes I know, three previous Vfd's, but not in such a rude manner.  I also pointed out that I was not trying to insinuate any invalidity of those previous Vfd's, just that they were flooded times before and a long arduous debate seemed pointless, and the basis of real reasons for keeping the article were lost.   However, myself and other users also consist of the we you mentioned, and all registered Wikipedians are considered equal, my or any other users questioning of the process, or policy, and further discussion there of, should not be barked at, reguardless of administrator status. Thanks for your comments.  <>Who?¿? 30 June 2005 03:36 (UTC)
:::::Look, I'm sorry I barked at you (did not intend to), but you have to understand that there was significant controversy on this issue, and the issue was resolved in the third VfD. Those who were dead-set against having the article meticuluously went through and weeded out any suspected sock puppets (and some that most likely weren't!) and the majority decision was still to keep. My point is that if you vote on VfD, then do so carefully because once the vote is closed, your vote is counted as final. It's absurd to vote keep when you mean delete! - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 03:45 (UTC)
::::::(too many colons, ugh) I completely agree with voting carefully, as it is set. My main concern is that there was a problem with "group think" and tiredness of the issue, as it was, unfortunately the third Vfd. The first two, actually had more reasoning for voting, than the third, and I still feel the entire process was defunct by the issue of the Vfd's themselves, and not the issue of whether or not the article should remain. Somewhere above, it mentions that there is more than just the notability of a topic for an article. I agree with that as well, but they only established themselves on Wiki, to fight not getting kicked off of Wiki. User Geni, states below, that there are other problems to deal with this same type of issue (if I read it correctly), meaning this "issue" is just ignored. I also have good faith that for the third Vfd, as you stated, that there were careful measures taken to ensure it was not sockpuppetry and trolling, but we still are left with votes like "This again?". I understand that if you previously voted on an issue, that you may still have the same feelings, but since it was brought back to the floor, there maybe new issues to consider. Mainly thats why I wanted to discuss this, in this manner, that Wikipedians can review the discussion and the entire history of the Vfd and see if they still feel the same about their vote, as its not a tiring issue, at the moment.  <>Who?¿? 30 June 2005 04:09 (UTC)
---
slashdot rolling is clearly not enough to get you an article on wikipedia. see
*Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Committee of Logged in Trolls
on the other hand:
*Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naked and Petrified
some things are best left untill we have sorted out everything else on wikipedia.Geni 30 June 2005 02:05 (UTC)
===Previous decisions=== 
The problem, as I see it, is that it is also unfair to those who voted to delete before. Constantly placing an article on VfD means that there vote is never accepted, and they must keep the article on their watchlists, lest they miss the next VfD. I considering placing an article like GNAA on VfD more than 3 or 4 times as disruptive because having to always monitor that article to see if it has been placed on VfD again is disruptive to that users watchlist (I have over 100 articles on the list, and I've been trying to keep it to a bare minimum!). - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 05:33 (UTC)
**I can agree with placing people in a situation that they feel is either resolved, or just tired of seeing, may bring up a bit of angst. Resubmitting a previous Vfd, doesnt negate anyones previous comments nor votes, it only points out that someone may have seen a significant reasoning for the resubmittal, or even a different view point of the subject. The fact that something has came to a Vfd three times, is just as important that it may have an issue as it keeps coming up, just as much as its important to suggest it has been voted three times and its been decided. However, the latter reasoning, not only can mean that one feels it has been decided, but could also mean they no longer want to discuss it. 
::For the matter of what is on someones watchlist, is a personal preference. To assume that a change in something that they are watching is disruptive, suggests that they feel that it is perfect the way it is, and will refute any change; is more disruptive than the actual change. I personally have about 130 articles on my watchlist, and I routinely clean them out. This is not a valid issue of this discussion, as each person chooses what they want to watch, and again, to even suggest that a change in something they are watching, is wrong or disruptive, is not the spirit of Wikipedia.  <>Who?¿? 30 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)
:solveing your watchlist problem is simple you put Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America on yor watchlist. It hardly ever gets edited so it doesn't really ad too your watchlist traffic. I have eleven hundred pages on my watchlist it isn't really a problem.Geni 1 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
::Fair enough, point taken. However, constantly submitting the article to VfD also means that it constantly has the VfD header on the top of the article. This is also disruptive. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
:::Meh, it's been more than half a year. If we kept on going like that (please let's not), that would still only mean having the VfD banner on 2.7% of the time. And it's not like that banner is preventing anyone from reading the article. --W(t) 1 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
::::OK, well, what about my objection that it is winning VfD by wearing down the participants? That same argument is used for placing the VfD back again! - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
:::::Oh come on, you know just as well that nobody from either camp is going to get worn down, they're far too well entrenched. But there's nothing wrong with re-evaluating prevailing opinion, these things do change (I remember when we deleted school substubs by the bucketload). --W(t) 1 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
::::::Do I? I must disagree... if I have to vote in another VfD on this issue again, I'm going to feel most upset. Why is it so hard to accept that the community decided to keep the GNAA article?!? How many do you need to decide that it is notable or is definitely wanted here? I mean, I can understand it being submitted twice, maybe even 3 times - but 4 times? And if it is voted to keep that time, will it be submitted a 5th and 6th time? What about 10th time? When do we stop submitting the dratted article? - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
:::::::Reguardless of GNAA, one should always have the right to question a decision or policy previously decided, without fear of retribution or punishment. <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
::::::::For the record, I have never implied or wished for anyone to be punished for challenging the status quo on a talk page. If this was the case then I would have to have been blocked because of my own comments on Talk:Zoroastrianism.
:::::::::Uhm, ok, I dont recall any conversations with you.  Besides, it was a general statement. <>Who?¿? 3 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
::::::::You still have not addressed my question: how many times should a person be allowed to submit an article to VfD? I personally would like to submit Christian views of women to VfD again, but having done this once with an overwhelming majority voting against me I will not do it again. That would be considered disruptive, and other editors would seriously have to consider a response to my actions should I ever submit this to VfD again.
::::::::To make an extreme case to highlight my point: what happens if the Mona Lisa article is submitted to VfD? Would this be disruption? What happens if the editor continued doing this? What would you do then? - Ta bu shi da yu 3 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
:::::::::← redo indent.
*The difference between Mona Lisa and this particular case, is that no one is sockpuppeting/trolling to keep an article about themselves, when clearly Mona Lisa is a painting, and not a group of people. I would nominate any group, that is not well established, in other peoples eyes.  Now for how many times something should be submitted; I would not resubmit any article I have submitted before. I would not resubmit any article that I fealt was resolved previously. you personally took part in the previous Vfd's, and you feel your decision is final, thats fine. However, other people may have a different perspective on the subject, and may want to resubmit it. You are pretty much saying, just because you feel it has been resolved, that no one else should ever submit it to Vfd again. As I was saying with policy, anyone should be able to discuss or question current policy and recommend change, without persucution. Constantly stating that it is disruptive, is a form of persucution and/or fear, as you are an admin, and some may take it as you saying Don't do that., when no admin has the authority to do that.  Especially seeings this is a discussion, rather than a Vfd. I actually fealt that I answered previous questions in earlier discussions. Basically, if you feel an article or policy is suspect for change and/or deletion, you should be able to recommend that change, w/o anyone telling you not to, as thats the whole point of Vfd, Cfd, Tfd, to discuss the future of an article. It is not disruptive in any manner, and should not be considered so.  <>Who?¿? 3 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
:There are two things here: let me make this clear that I am not speaking as an administrator! Stop using this as an argument please. I will not take administrative action on that page or anything that happens because of it (except simple vandalism) - this is because I am involved in it. Please stop implying that I will. You are also saying that I may not voice my opinion that it is disruptive to constantly list an article on VfD, yet it is also OK for editors to constantly list an article on VfD. Can you not see the double-standard at work here? Those who list the article on VfD may do so as much as they want, yet I may not give forth my opinion that it is disruptive. Secondly, we dealt with the sock puppetry and trolling on the last VfD page. For you to say that we did not is wrong. 
:I do not actually think you answered my straight-forward and plainly asked question: namely, how many times will you allow an article to be placed on VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
::Sorry, I didn't intentionally mean to be specific towards you acting as an admin. I mean in general,  I know your intentions because we discussed it elsewhere; my basic concern about this one point, is that users not familiar with the process and/or policies, might take it as an admin saying "dont", only because it was said by an admin in a general clause. The statement itself "this is disruptive behaviour", could be taken by others as an administrative stance.  I honestly did not mean you  Ta bu shi da yu, in general, I appologize for portraying such.  As for the main question How many times...?; quite simply, if someone comes along with a different vantage point and questions a previous decision (deletion discussions, policies, etc..); they should be able to voice they're opinion on those decisions. In this case, I brought it up as a discussion, rather than a Vfd, after I studied the entire history. As such, I wanted Wikipedians personal standpoint on the issue, as they are not always as clear in the Vfd. I also stated, that in the first two Vfd's that there was recognized sockpuppetry/trolling, and that the involved admins took steps in the third Vfd to prevent this, I am not questioning that. I am mainly questioning the possible "group think" and general tiredness of the Vfd, it seemed to get so bad with dealing with the Vfd's themselves, that it was easier to give in and let it be unresolved.  Note, these are not my soul observances, this is stated by other Wikipedians in the discussions.  After all that, we go back to notoriety; An established sub-group may be notable in its location, but outside of that scope, there is little to none, the only recogitiion beyond that scope, is the actual article of the group, and the trolling they did in general on Wikipedia. I do not feel this should warrant inclusion, we are accepting them for only the brute force tactics, and not the group meaning itself, which is very moot.  I hope I answered, even if not sastifactory, all your questions. I do not mean to defer any of your comments, I was trying to answer other comments as well, and am not always clear.  <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
:::For the record: if this article were to come up on VfD again, I would again vote "Keep", since I do not believe in notability as a criterion, but care only for verifiability. GNAA's existence and exploits can be indepedently verified, which is good enough for me. (Of course the article might need some pruning for unverifiable statements, but that's it). What people voted on the previous VfDs is of no concern to me, nor is the number of times the article will be renominated. But it's very likely I would simply stop voting at some point, as I have no intention of sinking my time in continuously asserting my opinions when it's clear they're not helping to establish some sort of consensus.
:::I think GNAA is one of the things we will not reach consensus on, plain and simple, until some effort is made outside of VfD to establish the article's final status. And since Wikipedians usually suck at getting to any sort of common ground in freeform discussions, even this isn't likely to do anything. The present discussion is a good example: we're getting bogged down in questions like "how many times can something be submitted to VfD", which is a good question in itself, but probably not what the discussion was about in the first place. A desire to continuously resubmit an article to VfD is a symptom of something, not a disease in itself. JRM · Talk 4 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
::::I agree.  I was hoping this discussion would be that, other than Vfd route.  Now as it is, there is the new Vfd, third one after this discussion started.  I am not sure anything is going to be decided accurately there either. Although Ta bu shi da yu has laid out ground rules and "edit count" provisions, it doesn't seem to be helping. Many of the votes are based solely on the fact that its another Vfd.  I noticed one user doing null edits all day, and I didnt know why until he voted keep on that Vfd  User:Mr. Delayer - (contribs) -   (edit count). I am sure there are more like him. So I am at a loss of what to think of the situation, other than ignoring it, like before, or WP:RFC.  <>Who?¿? 12:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem will be resolved with a policy change relating to frequency of VfDs. This article will be a good test case. My Delayer's vote has been moved to discounted keep, by the way. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on your user talk page, for this particular note.  <>Who?¿? 12:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible new Vfd comments

message: The problem, as I see it, is that it is also unfair to those who voted to delete before. Constantly placing an article on VfD means that there vote is never accepted, and they must keep the article on their watchlists, lest they miss the next VfD. I considering placing an article like GNAA on VfD more than 3 or 4 times as disruptive because having to always monitor that article to see if it has been placed on VfD again is disruptive to that users watchlist (I have over 100 articles on the list, and I've been trying to keep it to a bare minimum!). - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 05:33 (UTC)
**I can agree with placing people in a situation that they feel is either resolved, or just tired of seeing, may bring up a bit of angst. Resubmitting a previous Vfd, doesnt negate anyones previous comments nor votes, it only points out that someone may have seen a significant reasoning for the resubmittal, or even a different view point of the subject. The fact that something has came to a Vfd three times, is just as important that it may have an issue as it keeps coming up, just as much as its important to suggest it has been voted three times and its been decided. However, the latter reasoning, not only can mean that one feels it has been decided, but could also mean they no longer want to discuss it. 
::For the matter of what is on someones watchlist, is a personal preference. To assume that a change in something that they are watching is disruptive, suggests that they feel that it is perfect the way it is, and will refute any change; is more disruptive than the actual change. I personally have about 130 articles on my watchlist, and I routinely clean them out. This is not a valid issue of this discussion, as each person chooses what they want to watch, and again, to even suggest that a change in something they are watching, is wrong or disruptive, is not the spirit of Wikipedia.  <>Who?¿? 30 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)
:solveing your watchlist problem is simple you put Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America on yor watchlist. It hardly ever gets edited so it doesn't really ad too your watchlist traffic. I have eleven hundred pages on my watchlist it isn't really a problem.Geni 1 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
::Fair enough, point taken. However, constantly submitting the article to VfD also means that it constantly has the VfD header on the top of the article. This is also disruptive. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
:::Meh, it's been more than half a year. If we kept on going like that (please let's not), that would still only mean having the VfD banner on 2.7% of the time. And it's not like that banner is preventing anyone from reading the article. --W(t) 1 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
::::OK, well, what about my objection that it is winning VfD by wearing down the participants? That same argument is used for placing the VfD back again! - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
:::::Oh come on, you know just as well that nobody from either camp is going to get worn down, they're far too well entrenched. But there's nothing wrong with re-evaluating prevailing opinion, these things do change (I remember when we deleted school substubs by the bucketload). --W(t) 1 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
::::::Do I? I must disagree... if I have to vote in another VfD on this issue again, I'm going to feel most upset. Why is it so hard to accept that the community decided to keep the GNAA article?!? How many do you need to decide that it is notable or is definitely wanted here? I mean, I can understand it being submitted twice, maybe even 3 times - but 4 times? And if it is voted to keep that time, will it be submitted a 5th and 6th time? What about 10th time? When do we stop submitting the dratted article? - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
:::::::Reguardless of GNAA, one should always have the right to question a decision or policy previously decided, without fear of retribution or punishment. <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
::::::::For the record, I have never implied or wished for anyone to be punished for challenging the status quo on a talk page. If this was the case then I would have to have been blocked because of my own comments on Talk:Zoroastrianism.
:::::::::Uhm, ok, I dont recall any conversations with you.  Besides, it was a general statement. <>Who?¿? 3 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
::::::::You still have not addressed my question: how many times should a person be allowed to submit an article to VfD? I personally would like to submit Christian views of women to VfD again, but having done this once with an overwhelming majority voting against me I will not do it again. That would be considered disruptive, and other editors would seriously have to consider a response to my actions should I ever submit this to VfD again.
::::::::To make an extreme case to highlight my point: what happens if the Mona Lisa article is submitted to VfD? Would this be disruption? What happens if the editor continued doing this? What would you do then? - Ta bu shi da yu 3 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
:::::::::← redo indent.
*The difference between Mona Lisa and this particular case, is that no one is sockpuppeting/trolling to keep an article about themselves, when clearly Mona Lisa is a painting, and not a group of people. I would nominate any group, that is not well established, in other peoples eyes.  Now for how many times something should be submitted; I would not resubmit any article I have submitted before. I would not resubmit any article that I fealt was resolved previously. you personally took part in the previous Vfd's, and you feel your decision is final, thats fine. However, other people may have a different perspective on the subject, and may want to resubmit it. You are pretty much saying, just because you feel it has been resolved, that no one else should ever submit it to Vfd again. As I was saying with policy, anyone should be able to discuss or question current policy and recommend change, without persucution. Constantly stating that it is disruptive, is a form of persucution and/or fear, as you are an admin, and some may take it as you saying Don't do that., when no admin has the authority to do that.  Especially seeings this is a discussion, rather than a Vfd. I actually fealt that I answered previous questions in earlier discussions. Basically, if you feel an article or policy is suspect for change and/or deletion, you should be able to recommend that change, w/o anyone telling you not to, as thats the whole point of Vfd, Cfd, Tfd, to discuss the future of an article. It is not disruptive in any manner, and should not be considered so.  <>Who?¿? 3 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
:There are two things here: let me make this clear that I am not speaking as an administrator! Stop using this as an argument please. I will not take administrative action on that page or anything that happens because of it (except simple vandalism) - this is because I am involved in it. Please stop implying that I will. You are also saying that I may not voice my opinion that it is disruptive to constantly list an article on VfD, yet it is also OK for editors to constantly list an article on VfD. Can you not see the double-standard at work here? Those who list the article on VfD may do so as much as they want, yet I may not give forth my opinion that it is disruptive. Secondly, we dealt with the sock puppetry and trolling on the last VfD page. For you to say that we did not is wrong. 
:I do not actually think you answered my straight-forward and plainly asked question: namely, how many times will you allow an article to be placed on VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
::Sorry, I didn't intentionally mean to be specific towards you acting as an admin. I mean in general,  I know your intentions because we discussed it elsewhere; my basic concern about this one point, is that users not familiar with the process and/or policies, might take it as an admin saying "dont", only because it was said by an admin in a general clause. The statement itself "this is disruptive behaviour", could be taken by others as an administrative stance.  I honestly did not mean you  Ta bu shi da yu, in general, I appologize for portraying such.  As for the main question How many times...?; quite simply, if someone comes along with a different vantage point and questions a previous decision (deletion discussions, policies, etc..); they should be able to voice they're opinion on those decisions. In this case, I brought it up as a discussion, rather than a Vfd, after I studied the entire history. As such, I wanted Wikipedians personal standpoint on the issue, as they are not always as clear in the Vfd. I also stated, that in the first two Vfd's that there was recognized sockpuppetry/trolling, and that the involved admins took steps in the third Vfd to prevent this, I am not questioning that. I am mainly questioning the possible "group think" and general tiredness of the Vfd, it seemed to get so bad with dealing with the Vfd's themselves, that it was easier to give in and let it be unresolved.  Note, these are not my soul observances, this is stated by other Wikipedians in the discussions.  After all that, we go back to notoriety; An established sub-group may be notable in its location, but outside of that scope, there is little to none, the only recogitiion beyond that scope, is the actual article of the group, and the trolling they did in general on Wikipedia. I do not feel this should warrant inclusion, we are accepting them for only the brute force tactics, and not the group meaning itself, which is very moot.  I hope I answered, even if not sastifactory, all your questions. I do not mean to defer any of your comments, I was trying to answer other comments as well, and am not always clear.  <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
:::For the record: if this article were to come up on VfD again, I would again vote "Keep", since I do not believe in notability as a criterion, but care only for verifiability. GNAA's existence and exploits can be indepedently verified, which is good enough for me. (Of course the article might need some pruning for unverifiable statements, but that's it). What people voted on the previous VfDs is of no concern to me, nor is the number of times the article will be renominated. But it's very likely I would simply stop voting at some point, as I have no intention of sinking my time in continuously asserting my opinions when it's clear they're not helping to establish some sort of consensus.
:::I think GNAA is one of the things we will not reach consensus on, plain and simple, until some effort is made outside of VfD to establish the article's final status. And since Wikipedians usually suck at getting to any sort of common ground in freeform discussions, even this isn't likely to do anything. The present discussion is a good example: we're getting bogged down in questions like "how many times can something be submitted to VfD", which is a good question in itself, but probably not what the discussion was about in the first place. A desire to continuously resubmit an article to VfD is a symptom of something, not a disease in itself. JRM · Talk 4 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
::::I agree.  I was hoping this discussion would be that, other than Vfd route.  Now as it is, there is the new Vfd, third one after this discussion started.  I am not sure anything is going to be decided accurately there either. Although Ta bu shi da yu has laid out ground rules and "edit count" provisions, it doesn't seem to be helping. Many of the votes are based solely on the fact that its another Vfd.  I noticed one user doing null edits all day, and I didnt know why until he voted keep on that Vfd  User:Mr. Delayer - (contribs) -   (edit count). I am sure there are more like him. So I am at a loss of what to think of the situation, other than ignoring it, like before, or WP:RFC.  <>Who?¿? 12:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem will be resolved with a policy change relating to frequency of VfDs. This article will be a good test case. My Delayer's vote has been moved to discounted keep, by the way. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on your user talk page, for this particular note.  <>Who?¿? 12:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous decisions