An article on the internet trolling association Gay Nigger Association of America was deleted on 28 November, after the 18th attempt for its deletion (though most prior attempts were made by trolls). A subsequent deletion review affirmed the page's deletion, and the page now exists only to prevent it from being recreated.

The page was created in April 2004 (though as early as January 2004, GNAA redirected to Slashdot trolling phenomena [1]). It was first nominated for deletion on 30 April, 2004; this discussion did not reach a consensus. Later nominations in September, October, and December also were closed with no consensus. Many of the 14 subsequent nominations were purportedly made by GNAA trolls.

The page was again nominated for deletion on 26 November. After two days of discussion, Tawker closed the debate and deleted the article. Part of the reason that this nomination resulted in the article's deletion is that the nomination, unlike others, focused on the article's lack of reliable sources, and its purported original research. While the page contained 21 citations, many of these citations were from the GNAA's website, and none fit Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source.

The debate was taken to deletion review on the same day, with TrollHistorian arguing that "The article was deleted too soon before a real discussion could commence ... At the very least the article should be undeleted and a new AFD should be started or the old one restarted." While a significant minority of users had voted to restore the article, the deletion was overwhelmingly endorsed, and the deletion review was closed, with the decision to endorse its deletion, on 3 December.

In a mailing list discussion on the deletion, Jimbo Wales weighed in:

"The problem is that this article had no legitimate sources, not even close, and after a long period of time, no one was able to come up with any, since there really are not any. There is no way to write a proper article because there is no way to find out the truth in a way that is reliable. There is a curious sort of backlash in many cases when the subject matter *is* a bit uncomfortable. If this was some obscure blog of the same general stature, it would have been deleted without a peep. But because we are sooooo terrified that we might actually delete something for the wrong reason, we end up keeping stuff for the wrong reason. ... It's all about whether we can write a proper article with reliable third party sources and no original research."

At press time, discussion was still continuing on the article's talk page about its deletion.