Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LiteralKa (talk | contribs) at 15:28, 24 July 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Guilford Native American Association

• Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association
• Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination)

Guilford Native American Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More GNAA padding. Non-notable, non-profit organization. Doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Most of the "sources" are merely trivial mentions of the organization. On top of all this, its only claim to fame is that it attempts to "assist Indian people in achieving social and economic self-sufficiency" LiteralKa (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The 40 Google Books search results helpfully linked in the nomination statement go back to 1978, so I don't see how this can possibly be related in any way to the GNAA. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  It was added by an editor (along with a few other articles) with the clear intention of creating other pages that use GNAA as an acronym. LiteralKa (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I see extensive discussion of this group going back decades in the Google News Archive and on Google Books. This article has existed since 2005 and has been extensively edited since it was created. I see no need to delete it over six years later because of speculation about the intentions of its creator back then. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Comment: you say that like I presented it being GNAA padding as the only reason. That was merely to provide background on the article, not a reason. LiteralKa (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• comment. If you have some issue with association with some other subject, then removing the use of that acronym would be a simpler solution. And actually it was not present when the nomination was made. I also wonder why did you created such associations? Anyway, this assiciation does not look much notable, deletig would not hurt anything, it seems. - Nabla (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• The associations were there when the nomination was made, as GNAA was a disambiguation page listing this as one of the ambiguous meanings. As for your assertion that this doesn't look very notable, that sounds like a weak delete vote (if you were planning on voting.) (Also, is English not your first language or something? It's getting kinda hard to understand you...) LiteralKa (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The associations were there because you created them. - Nabla (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Look again. LiteralKa simply moved the former contents of "GNAA" to "GNAA_(disambiguation)". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for explaining without the snappy remarks, it gets so much easier to understand that way. I have striked the related comments above, so not to confuse readers. - Nabla (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for understanding. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates