Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:33, 28 November 2006

Template:TrollWarning

Template:GNAA-AfD

Logs of previous VFD attempts.

1. April 30, 2004 – May 7, 2004 No consensus
2. September 2, 2004 – September 8, 2004 No consensus
3. September 27, 2004 – October 5, 2004 No consensus
4. December 25, 2004 – December 31, 2004 Discussion was moved to legacy "old VfD" page, and was never officially closed
5. June 30, 2005 – July 1, 2005 Discussion was improperly delisted by an unknown user
6. July 8, 2005 – July 14, 2005 Keep (78 to 55, under strict anti-sockpuppet measures)
7. October 5, 2005 Discussion was delisted as "cancelled" (this is not a normal method of closing debate)
8. December 15, 2005 Discussion was delisted as speedy keep with a momentary consensus to delete. Sent to Deletion Review; no consensus, "general idea is that maybe we should wait 6 months before listing it again." Note that this does not mean you should automatically list it on June 15th.
9. March 25, 2006 Closed early by a rouge admin.

   March 25, 2006 speedy closed by Rob Church and deleted.

10. April 1, 2006 - April Fools Day joke
11. April 3, 2006 - Speedy closed
12. April 10, 2006 - Speedy closed
13. April 14, 2006 - Speedy Keep (previously misrepresented as a standard keep.)
14. April 15, 2006 - Speedy Keep (previously misrepresented as a standard keep.)
15. April 15, 2006 - Speedy Keep

    April 17, 2006 - AfD deleted as trolling/vandalism

16. May 17, 2006- Speedy keep, created by a vandal account.
17. June 3, 2006 - Speedy Keep (previously misrepresented as a standard keep.)
18. Nov 26, 2006 (in progress)

This article was previously considered for deletion on seventeen occasions. Most discussions that were allowed to run their course have resulted in no consensus with a default to keep this article. Consult and consider these previous discussions before nominating it again. Your nomination may be seen as bad faith or putting undue stress on the AfD system.

Gay Nigger Association of America received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Gay Nigger Association of America was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}.

Gay Nigger Association of America was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archive

• Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive1 22:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive2 22:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive3 08:01, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive4 16:17, 18 Sept 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive5

Large number of citation-needed tags

I've gone through and replaced many of these with actual footnotes where possible, but there remain a lot of them. Someone extremely pedantic has gone through here and spammed them about liberally, thankfully they seem to have gotten bored about half way through and stopped. I'm reluctant to just remove them but in my opinion they're making a mess of the article when someone feels every single sentence needs a citation. The article Hitler doesn't even have a single reference until the fifth paragraph of the second section. I'm aware of the need for sources but a lot of the 'documentation' about the GNAA is going on in transient media that's going to make these things very hard, not to mention the fact that their work will be frequently deleted and covered up by its underground nature.

Honestly I don't think there's much if any deliberate or accidental misinformation here, but keeping up this level of citation is going to be near impossible. Links to things like the ASIAN flooder did exist but has since been removed from their webspace so I can't refer to these places any more. Other requests for citation are just difficult to meet to a high level of specificity, e.g. that the GNAA have members from all over the world. Anyone can join their IRC channel and look at the hostnames to see some international country codes if they (for god knows what reason) believe this might be untrue and wish to check it, but this isn't really something that fits in a ref tag. As mentioned above also, the fact that their floods get deleted makes things like that they "often link to Lastmeasure" difficult to provide references for. Does anyone actually doubt they link to lastmeasure, considering they made it and host its homepage? Still, due to the nature of the GNAA it's difficult to provide an actual citation here because said links will be deleted by webmasters as they are posted.

I don't think removing all this "uncited" information is doing anyone a favour since it's something a lot of people could probably attest to and frankly obvious a lot of the time, but neither is it something the NYT reports on. I'm almost inclined to simply remove the most utterly pedantic of citations, e.g. the one on the opening sentence, not only because they're creating meaningless clutter but because in the big picture, I doubt their addition served any purpose short of intentionally trying to degrade the quality or increase the deletability of this article. Thoughts? --Rankler 20:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the point of Misplaced Pages is to publish material that we know is true, but material that has already been documented in reliable secondary sources. That's what we mean when we say Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it turns out. "Encyclopedia" doesn't just connote collection of true facts, but also carries connotations of reliability grounded in solid research. It's very tempting to bypass the whole research-in-secondary-sources bit with web related content that we can attest to because, hey, it's the Internets. That's something we have to fight against, and I would support removing any content from this article that can't be cited to a proper reliable source.

I think the real purpose of all those citation needed tags is to indicate to readers and editors alike that most of this article is a bunch of original research, and as such is in violation of Wikipedias core policies. -GTBacchus 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the fate then of an organisation apparently notable enough to deserve an article yet for which there are zero (or close enough to) citable sources that meet RS guidelines? I think holding an article like this to WP:RS is simply unrealistic, the rules therein are not universifiable enough to require strict enforcement without destroying a massive amount of potential content here and in other articles. Obviously there is a paradox of purpose here when we evidently want an article (as evidenced by GNAA's VfDs) which we cannot write. Is the solution to provide an article with less than ideal source attribution or a little stub saying we can't write about this because it doesn't appear in a published journal, but hey it does exist? Perhaps this is an ideological issue but I think it's better to break WP:RS and provide the article than to provide nothing. RS is well-intentioned but frankly doesn't reflect the environment Misplaced Pages operates in. --Rankler 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An alternative solution would be to insist that Misplaced Pages is defined by its core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and therefore accept that Misplaced Pages is actually not the place for an article on GNAA, or on any other Internet group that hasn't been documented in reliable sources. Whether a sufficient number of people "want" the article and have managed to exploit the weakness of AfD until now isn't really relevant to the question of whether this article complies with our policy. You might prefer that the policies change (and there's a place to suggest that), but I would prefer that the unsourced content be hosted on some other Wiki, where different standards are in effect. There's currently a lot of tension here between those who want Misplaced Pages to document the minutiae of internet culture, and those who would rather hold to our founding principles. I guess it's clear which side I identify more closely with. -GTBacchus 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Should freenode #wikipedia flood and picture be removed?

My reasons for removal:

• WP:BEANS
• WP:DENY
• Self referential
• Not notable enough

Anomo 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Our articles must be comprehensive, even if it's inconvenient, so BEANS and DENY don't apply to article space. For the other two, it's an example; I agree that a non-Misplaced Pages example would be better, but this one is fine. -- SCZenz 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a small new section

Just added a brief trivia entry near the bottom noting that this article currently holds the record for most AFD votes. Jtrainor 09:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's something we should broadcast. I wouldn't want to start some sort of partisan competition to see which article can be proposed for deletion the most often. After all, the repeated AfD's aren't exactly a point of pride for this article. Kasreyn 03:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a secondary source, and that its articles about their subjects. That is, the GNAA article is about GNAA, not about the article itself or about Misplaced Pages's treatment of the article. For this reason, I removed the section in question yesterday. -- SCZenz 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I didn't mean to stumble into an edit conflict (Note to self: stupid Wowbagger! ALWAYS read the history before editing!), but the tags were quite a bit overboard. Generally, the lead paragraph doesn't need them, if the statements there are supported in the main body of the article. And, in cases like where we refer to Last Measure, we really don't need a citation; we have a bloody article on the other end of the wikilink, after all.

I only removed the tags I viewed as totally ridiculous; I think most of the rest are uncontested and could stand to go anyway, but that's a call I leave to more regular contributors to this and other Internet-related articles. --BCSWowbagger 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically this article should be deleted.

Adter all, the mods have already taken down the Myg0t page, Myg0t being yet another association of trolls. The velociraptor 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you really feel that way, then feel free to put up a request on WP:AfD —shoecream 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes this page should be deleted. BhaiSaab 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure whether the page should be deleted, but it should definitely be put on WP:AfD. There hasn't been enough drama lately. 213.41.246.80 16:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No reliable secondary sources

I'm sure this has been said thousands of times, but I find it funny that this article has no reliable secondary sources at all. Blog posts and slashdot user pages normally wouldn't be considered reliable. --- RockMFR 06:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the party. You're 17 AfDs late. Now before you spike the punch, why don't you look over the rest of this page on the subject of sources?-- ABigBlackMan 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The arguments, where they are coherent, seem to be "But I KNOW this is true, so it doesn't need reliable sources!" -Amarkov _edits 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted!

Woooooo! *dances* >__> --- RockMFR 04:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Delisted good articles
• Former good article nominees