Talk:GNAA (disambiguation): Difference between revisions

Disambiguation

This disambiguation 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.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Template:Archive box collapsible

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How can you suggest that when many disambig pages already either link to empty pages or reference non-wikipedia pages? 86.176.35.94 (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --98.198.221.140 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Too bad the article was taken down- any archives? I'd like to know of any alternatives that the virus scanners wouldn't catch. on.nimp.org is getting too repetitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.40.103 (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]