Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:34, 28 November 2006 editAmarkov (talk | contribs)11,154 edits changing result for 18th to delete← Previous edit Revision as of 06:17, 28 November 2006 edit undoGurch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers109,955 editsm {{deletedpage}}Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TrollWarning}} {{deletedpage}}


<!-- ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-->
{{GNAA-AfD}}

Logs of previous VFD attempts.
#] No consensus
# No consensus
# No consensus
# Discussion was moved to legacy "old VfD" page, and was never officially closed
#] Discussion was improperly delisted by an unknown user
#] Keep (78 to 55, under strict anti-] measures)
#] Discussion was delisted as "cancelled" (this is not a normal method of closing debate)
#] Discussion was delisted as speedy keep with a momentary consensus to delete. Sent to ]; 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.
#] Closed early by a ].
#:] speedy closed by Rob Church and .
#] - April Fools Day joke
#] - Speedy closed
#] - Speedy closed
#] - Speedy Keep (previously misrepresented as a standard keep.)
#] - Speedy Keep (previously misrepresented as a standard keep.)
#] - Speedy Keep
#:] - AfD deleted as trolling/vandalism
#]- Speedy keep, created by a vandal account.
#] - Speedy Keep (previously misrepresented as a standard keep.)
#] - Delete

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
| ]
| 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.
|}
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{facfailed}}
{{DelistedGA}}{{FailedGA}}



==Archive==
*] 22:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*] 22:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
*] 08:01, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
*] 16:17, 18 Sept 2006 (UTC)
*]
== 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? --] 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 ].

: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 ], and as such is in violation of Wikipedias core policies. -]<sup>(])</sup> 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 ] 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 ] and provide the article than to provide nothing. RS is well-intentioned but frankly doesn't reflect the environment Misplaced Pages operates in. --] 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::An alternative solution would be to insist that Misplaced Pages is defined by its core policies of ], ] and ], 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. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== Should freenode #wikipedia flood and picture be removed? ==

My reasons for removal:
*]
*]
*Self referential
*Not notable enough
] 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. -- ] 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. ] 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. ] 03:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::The bigger issue is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a ''secondary source'', and that its ]. 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. -- ] 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 {{fact}} 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 ], 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. --] 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. ] 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:If you really feel that way, then feel free to put up a request on ] &mdash;] 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:Yes this page should be deleted. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Not sure whether the page should be deleted, but it should definitely be put on ]. There hasn't been enough drama lately. ] 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. --- ] 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?-- ] 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!" -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 06:17, 28 November 2006

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
This talk page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation.


Category:
Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America: Difference between revisions Add topic