User:Michaeldsuarez/GNAA

The following is an user essay by LiteralKa. It is being maintained in Michaeldsuarez's userspace with consensus for archival purposes and to quench the curiosity of those wishing to learn about how and why consensus changed from constantly rejecting requests for recreation to finally accepting one such request. This essay may also find relevance in future AfD discussions. Feel free to fix typos and improve semantics and readability.

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: GNAA no longer meets any of the criteria for deletion. GNAA easily passes WP:GNG and clearly demonstrates notability. When compared with the revision that was deleted five years ago, the working draft is almost completely unrecognizable. All of the old article's problems have been addressed.

Undelete the Gay Nigger Association of America

For The pre-RfD 18 copy of the Gay Nigger Association of America article, see User:LiteralKa/Gay Nigger Association of America.

For The post-RfD 18 draft of the Gay Nigger Association of America article, see User:Murdox/GNAA.

The Gay Nigger Association of America article has had a long and "controversial" history on Wikipedia. The article went through numerous (read: 18) RFDs before finally being deleted. The deletion reason citing concerns with verifiability. This history needs to be addressed if we are to improve the encyclopedia.

That was half a decade ago. Since then, the GNAA has been mentioned in numerous sources whose reliability cannot be questioned, and can, without a doubt, be considered "notable". To quote riffic, during a previous deletion review:

I would like to point out that the sources used in the draft establish notability for both organisations in the same news article. The article by the Atlantic states "Weev rails against Jews in his LiveJournal and he and several other members of Goatse Security claim to be members of the Gay N***** Association of America," and in the Portuguese article in Rede Globo, the author goes on to describe other members of the GNAA.

(Since then, the reason of why Goatse Security and the Gay Nigger Association of America are separate entities has been detailed in this interview. The main reason being that nobody would take security research from the "Gay Nigger Association of America" very seriously, let alone publish it.)

• With the second wave of publicity RE: weev and JacksonBrown's arrests, the Goatse Security/GNAA connection was made a lot clearer.
• The Patriotic Nigras are a troll group that has undergone far less scrutiny on Wikipedia, despite having much less notable sources. I feel that we must tackle this double standard if we are to improve the encyclopedia.
• There is no denying it, the Gay Nigger Association of America is notable, in their own right. It does not need to "inherit" notability from Goatse Security when it has its own notability.

The first paragraph of WP:NOREFS reads: "When notability is in doubt, and that is the reason given for deletion, the very best way to counteract that is to demonstrate notability." riffic (among others) has done this numerous times (as shown below). GNAA has been involved in numerous events. The page is not an advertisement, it is notable as per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.

So far, the only arguments for keeping it deleted fall under WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, WP:ATTP, WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:JNN, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOEFFORT. Coincidentally, these are all listed under the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

See also: WP:DRAMA

Those against recreating the article are asking the draft to be bombarded with references to demonstrate a level notability far beyond that of other articles. The editors involved in the upkeep of the draft have done everything to avoid this, as it is simply "un-encyclopedic".

Those for the recreation of the article have pointed out that the GNAA is notable (see: the next paragraph), and that there is a good working draft of the article. In the five years since the deletion of the article, the draft has come a long way. Remember, an article should be judged based on what it can grow into one day, not what it already is.

It is ridiculous that riffic (among others) has to repeat^[1] his assertions^[2] of notability over^[3] and^[4] over^[5] again^[6].

GNAA no longer meets any of the criteria for deletion

• Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
  • The article is not a copyright violation.
• Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
  • The article is not vandalism.
• Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
  • The article is not an advertisement.
• Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
  • The article is not a "content fork".
• Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes
  • The article has been attributed to reliable sources.
• Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  • So many reliable sources have been found that WP:BOMBARD has become an issue.
• Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
  • See below for why it meets the notability guidelines.
• Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
  • The GNAA is not a living person.

GNAA is notable

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]}
  • None of these are "trivial mentions", some describe the group, and others detail their various "activities".
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. [...] Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]}
  • All of these are, beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, reliable.
• "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.
  • None are primary sources.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^{[7][8][9][15][10][11][12][13][14]}
  • These outlets have nothing to do with the GNAA.

In summary

• GNAA no longer meets any of the criteria for deletion.
• GNAA easily passes WP:GNG, clearly demonstrating notability.
• Those against recreating the article are asking the draft to be bombarded with references to demonstrate a level notability far beyond that of other articles. The editors involved in the upkeep of the draft have done everything to avoid this, as it is simply "un-encyclopedic".
• When compared with the revision that was deleted five years ago, the working draft is almost completely unrecognizable. All of the old article's problems have been addressed.
• The first paragraph of WP:NOREFS reads: "When notability is in doubt, and that is the reason given for deletion, the very best way to counteract that is to demonstrate notability." riffic (among others) has done this numerous times. GNAA has been involved in numerous events. The page is not an advertisement, it is notable as per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.

For those who will inevitably accuse me of wikilawyering, gaming the system, or even "wikifinagling", I would like to point out that deletion reviews are a formal process, and citing policies and guidelines in a formal process should not be frowned upon.