Talk:GNAA (disambiguation)

Including an article or reference to GNAA's Last Measure troll site

I wholeheartedly believe that the disambiguation page should include references to GNAA (I actually believe that GNAA should have its own article), even though it is a blatant troll site, it is way notable, Goggling Last Measure brings back 38 million results, IMO that is notable enough (even for it to have an article of its own. Thank you for your attention... --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just provide some links to reliable sources which discuss the GNAA in detail, so other editors can judge them. A google search of two random words is not a reliable source which discusses the material in detail. --Jayron32 05:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here you go, bro. [1] [2] [3] [4] (You need to change ED to EncyclopediaDramatica due to a filter) [5] [6] [7] (Here too) [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Now, I am not really sure of what could/would constitute a reliable source around here even though I have contributed with some stuff every now and then, but it is a fact that GNAA and Last Measure are well documented around the Internet.

Thanks again for your attention, bro. --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm... Well, I guess nobody here gives a fuck...--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those sites are reliable sources. If you want to know what a reliable source would be, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. All of the websites you show are user-generated content (blogs, forums, wiki's, or similar formats) and have no editorial control. Do you have any links to newspapers, academic journals, books published by reputable publishing houses, magazines, or anything that meets that standard? --Jayron32 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that there'll be an article about this until there's an article about the "organization" that sponsors it. The notion that there'd be any article on that was killed via this "AfD". If you think that the "AfD" was mistaken, was invalid, or has become invalid, then you're free to argue this at "WP:DRV". If you're persuasive, then somebody can create an article on the one, and then on the other. (NB not all of what you cite as "reliable sources" are regarded hereabouts as reliable sources; please read "WP:RS".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

GNAA is on the wikipedia hitlist for always aiming it's sights at it. Wikipedia believes in the defense of hosting child pornography however defending hosting of articles that 'attack' it seem to be off limits.

The GNAA topic has somewhat of the same substance as articles on scientology. scientology has been kicked around Wikipedia so much it's untouchable and instead of being deleted it's protected.

GNAA does deserve to have the same protection. Theres not many reliable sources your going to find backing scientology.

Waste of time trying to get the article back on here. It's why so many admins and others have quit Wikipedia; because it's ran with a POV.Woods01 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

GNAA is on the wikipedia hitlist for always aiming it's sights at it. -- Evidence? ¶ Wikipedia believes in the defense of hosting child pornography -- That's disturbing news. Please present your evidence for it to the police. ¶ The GNAA topic has somewhat of the same substance as articles on scientology. -- Oh? ¶ Theres not many reliable sources your going to find backing scientology. -- Just about any national newspaper worth the name is going to have numerous articles about this outfit, its beliefs, spokesmen, and practices. The Guardian has over six hundred hits for "scientology". (For "gnaa", it wonders if you mean "gnaw".) ¶ scientology has been kicked around Wikipedia so much it's untouchable and instead of being deleted it's protected. -- Scientology-related articles are indeed often protected. Scientology itself certainly isn't protected. -- Hoary (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Woods01, none of what you said is relevant. The question that is important to us is "Is GNAA notable?", as Wikipedia defines the term notable. So far it is not. Scientology clearly is. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've seen Scientology on the news, read about it in newspapers, and heard about it on the radio. The same cannot be said for GNAA or their sites. --Deskana (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

not true. [13] and [14] riffic (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As Mr. Anonymous above me has mentioned, the GNAA is behind the recent release of the iPad security leak documents under the auspices of "Goatse Security". It's rather amazing that it took this long, but I dare say that this event certainly makes the troll organization notable. Furthermore, many of the articles on internet culture on this site, while more robustly supported via media or other references, still have enormous amounts of original research behind them. In light of those two things, I'd say it's high time to give the GNAA their page back. Sporkot (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E. Q ^{T C} 07:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E is not applicable, and your statement is meaningless without an explanation as to how it would be applicable riffic (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Two links are given above to suggest that some organization calling itself GNAA is noteworthy. One is to a page in Portuguese, a language that unfortunately I cannot read. The other is to a page in English. It's about somebody who calls himself "Weev". It says that "he and several other members of Goatse Security claim to be members of the Gay N***** Association of America" (coy asterisks in the original). And this is all it says about this GNAA. Now, what else that's about this GNAA is verifiable? -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to learn of your inability to read Portuguese. Here is a machine-translation from the Google [15]

Even if it isn't notable enough for an article, shouldn't it at least be mentioned on the disambiguation page? --69.248.73.245 (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Defintely not. A disambiguation page is specifically to resolve among wikipedia pages about it, not all possible meanings of a term. DMacks (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

book source 1, Book source 2--96.250.44.130 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This would certainly pass my notability threshold of more than a passing reference (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, general notability guideline). Anyone ready for a DRV? riffic (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Blog Theory" reference is "insignificant coverage" in my opinion. Just a few sentences. A passing mention isn't significant... atleast within the context of this discussion. I don't have a copy of "The Wikipedia Revolution" so I can't say for sure what the reference in that book might be, but I think it would need to be an entire chapter or the subject of the book before it passes the threshold of "significant coverage." ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

it ok

it very notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.221 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that settles that. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)