Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAMGLA (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been recreated, HOWEVER, it is, to the best of my knowledge, different from the version that has came before. One particular reason is that I have copyedited the page to the best of my abilities. However, I realized the lack of notability, as well as the inability to get any larger. Therefore, I have decided to renominate this page for deletion.

Here is the earlier debate for deletion.

Now, let's see if this should be deleted. —”MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and delete —”MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This page shoud be merged with nambla . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.190.148 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination initially overwrote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAMGLA; I've split it out. It was also orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Joaquin Murietta 05:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alexa rank of 3,216,460. Jkelly 05:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothingness. --rob 06:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is not a hoax perhaps it can be merged with the NAMBLA article since it is obviously a spin-off of sorts. In other words I think it gains notability by association with NAMBLA which sadly has plenty of notability but NAMGLA does not have enough to have its own article. Qaz ^(talk) 05:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (phirefenix) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.83.228 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's not a hoax, the message board appears to exist, but it's just one in millions. Perhaps it can work as an external link in NAMBLA, but without an actual organization attached, this is yet another messageboard. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with NAMBLA article (make it a Sub-Chapter therin) delete —” (talk)
• Delete. There isn't an AfD notice on the article. --Fire Star 01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now there is. --Fire Star 01:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge if there is any semblance of reality to this. — mæstro ^t/c4 14:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteEven it is authentic, it's still just a college class exercise71.28.243.246 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, that is what is claimed now. That is because an editor did a Google search, saw that the first result which came up was the aforementioned fictional group, and failed to see that the second result was http://www.namgla.com, a message board for the group which matches the description given by the article. Even if we speculate that Harvard went to the trouble of actually registering the namgla.com ___domain and setting up a message board there just to add verisimilitude to a fictional group referenced in a Constitutional Law class, what are we to make of the fact that the exam took place in 1998 and the message board was active as of October 2005? The much more obvious explanation is that the same name occurred to both a law professor trying to invoke the reputation of NAMBLA without referencing the real NAMBLA and to someone wanting a name for an advocacy group that was to girls what NAMBLA is to boys. It's not like it's an especially creative name. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.