Talk:GNAA (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:GNAA)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

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

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]
The "not notable" argument has been disproved time and time again. LiteralKa (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if it isn't notable enough for an article, shouldn't it at least be mentioned on the disambiguation page? -- (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)
How can you suggest that when many disambig pages already either link to empty pages or reference non-wikipedia pages? (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

book source 1, Book source 2-- (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)

There is obviously an agenda here to keep all troll-related info off Wikipedia. It's very childish and unprofessional to pretend something notable doesn't exist just because you don't agree with it. This group and its actions have appeared on CNN, gawker, cnet, theregister, etc. and still that's not enough, somehow. The GNAA article was up for quite a while before it was deleted, so it was deemed notable at first and for some reason this decision was overturned - and yet every episode of every single obscure Japanese cartoon ever made is explained in excruciating detail. -- (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are free to do either or both of two things. First, appeal for permission to create an article about "GNAA" the troll group that's sometimes said to exist: first read about the process at WP:DRV and then do it there. Secondly, appeal for the deletion of every article on an episode of any obscure Japanese cartoon: the recipe for this is here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Trying to reduce their notability isn't going to work, we've established notability time and time again. LiteralKa (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

it ok[edit]

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

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

lastmeasure mirrors?[edit]

Too bad the article was taken down- any archives? I'd like to know of any alternatives that the virus scanners wouldn't catch. is getting too repetitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the "View History" tab at the top of the article you can look at every version of the page. Here's one of the very earliest attempts at an article... but I'm not sure if contains the information you are looking for. If your interested in a tool that categories troll, scam and other malicious websites you should take a look at WOT. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding GNAA in reference to Goatse Security[edit]

Related articles for notable hacker group Goatse Security and notable hacker Weev are both peppered with mentions of GNAA, the Goatse Security article particularly. If GNAA cannot be mentioned on the disambiguation page, then mentions of GNAA should be removed from the Goatse Security and Weev articles - or those articles should be deleted. I do not actually think removing that information or deleting the articles is appropriate or at all useful, but if someone does wish to delete reference to Goatse Security from the GNAA disambiguation page - you should delete mentions of GNAA from those other articles as well, preferably BEFORE you touch this disambiguation page. Thankyou. --- Roidroid (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not so. Articles and disambiguation pages serve different purposes. "Disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title." - Since we don't have an article on the GNAA troll group it's outside the scope of the page to list it. However, I see there are a number of sources in "Goatse Security" article that reference GNAA... are they reliable secondary sources? If so, then perhaps it would be time to create a "GNAA (Internet trolls)" article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Double Standard. The Disambiguation page policy you mentioned only seems to apply to the GNAA disambiguation page. I just went to the disambiguation page category and chose a random 20 sequential disambiguation pages - 60% of the pages were effected by this "important" problem. --- Roidroid (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like you should mention it on those talk pages so people that care about those pages can get it fixed. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DMacks (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm comfortable with bluelinking Gay Nigger Association of America as it redirects to Goatse Security, per instructions at the disambig manual of style riffic (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily correct to call it a 'part of the larger goatse security group' [ish]. If anything it's the opposite. Goatse security is sort of a spinoff comprised mostly of GNAA members. Most of the sources that mention GNAA and Goatse in the same breath do so only to say that Goatse are GNAA members. It might be time to actually consider a proper article rather than the redirect. At the very least, change the redirect page to reflect accurate information. Freenode IRC stats indicate #gnaa has maintained more than 50 users on average for the last 3 years - (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. There's an effort to build a GNAA article at User:Murdox/GNAA if you're interested. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unused Acronyms[edit]

As per the disambiguation page guideline, I have removed both Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica (as per a complete lack of usage) and Great North Air Ambulance Service (as per common sense, and lack of usage) from the page. LiteralKa (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


I have redirected this page to Gay Nigger Association of America, as per the disambiguation guidelines. After taking a look at the view counts for each page, there was no doubt in my mind as to what users are looking for when they search "GNAA".[1][2][3]LiteralKa (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the above, I vote this redirect to Gay Nigger Association of America. -badmachine 01:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was page moved and redir changed. I feel very very dirty. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

GNAAGNAA (disambiguation) – See above, moving this page to a disambiguation would allow GNAA to redirect to Gay Nigger Association of America, which is undoubtedly what most people are looking for when searching "GNAA". -badmachine 21:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose proof would be required for such a statement. Your preferred target has been deleted before, and nominated several times for lack of notability. Google News does not show any hits for your preferred target (It prefers Great Northern Air Ambulance). Neither does Google Scholar -- (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Then I shall refer you to view statistics once more. Even so, Great North Air Ambulance itself is only a redirect to the proper title Great North Air Ambulance Service, which is obviously not a "GNAA". -badmachine 00:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, Google News and Google Scholar seem like obviously poor sources to gauge that GNAA's notability. If a news item is going to deal with them at all, it's entirely possible (even probable) the author would opt to refer to them only by the initialism, perhaps indicating that the spelled out version is unfit for print. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support I feel a bit dirty taking this position, but it just seems right. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence of overwhelmingly clear primary meaning. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to explain. First of all, only three of five pages linked are technically "GNAA's". Those being Gay Nigger Association of America, Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, and Guilford Native American Association. I will again point you to the view statistics for the contesting pages, which combined do not come remotely close to the amount of views for Gay Nigger Association of America. Additionally, both of these pages are stubs, one lacking proper citation. I hope that is enough to convince you that Gay Nigger Association of America is the proper location for GNAA. -badmachine 19:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Coming from WP:RM I didn't intend to support this as the nomination didn't show evidence of their being a primary topic. They are in the comments though, and they are overwhelming. 47,600 for the trolls, 800 for the ambulances. That is pretty clear, even if distasteful. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose - Not overwhelmingly clear that this is the primary topic, plus a disambiguation page isn't really causing any harm here. With abbreviations I prefer that redirects be more certain to be the primary. With USA for example, a search will bring up almost entirely results about the country. For GNAA, however, the fourth google result for a search is on a different topic, and none of the top news or news archive searches are about the association in question.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per the stats and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: a topic is primary if it is much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined, to be the topic sought. Just going with the numbers. ENeville (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.