This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RockMFR (talk | contribs) at 23:51, 9 December 2006 (→Note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:51, 9 December 2006 by RockMFR (talk | contribs) (→Note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Note
If anyone has any reliable sources to bring to light on this issue, please do so, this page is now sprotected. Open discussion is not a bad thing (it's a good thing), just try to avoid making this into a revert war page (that doesn't work) -- Tawker 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that the GNAA page has been the topic of so much divisive discussion within Misplaced Pages circles—including a comment on the topic by Wales—is in and of itself notable and verifiable. Perhaps we need a article titled, ”2006_Deletion_of_GNAA_Article” Mbelisle 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If any note of that particular drama had been taken by independent sources, that'd be one thing, as it is, tempests in this particular teacup don't satisfy the objective definition of notable that we use here. Nor is it verifiable in independent sources. Sorry. -GTBacchus 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- This reminds me of Elephant (wikipedia article). --- RockMFR 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment
While I haven't seen the original article to judge it by its content, I'd argue strongly that the GNAA deserves a entry at Misplaced Pages. When the Tony Pierce deletion came up and was posted on Digg by actor Wil Wheaton, he explained that the GNAA had harrassed him years ago. Other people who've spent time online are aware of the GNAA. However, I have strong evidence to suggest that Misplaced Pages has been infiltrated by members of the GNAA, making the ability to write an unbiased article about them nearly impossible. Still, this illustrates the need for their to be a source of information about the group.--LADude 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a source of unique information. We're supposed to find it from other reliable sources, and then add it. -Amarkov edits 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What would make writing an unbiased article possible would be non-trivial coverage in multiple independent published sources - no more, no less. That means people writing articles about GNAA. I'm sure, when the History of Teh Internet is researched, written and published, GNAA will have a chapter all to themselves. At that point, we'll be able to document them. -GTBacchus 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)