Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Self Torture (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 11 December 2006 (this article does get quoted a lot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has been deleted as the result of an AfD discussion; deletion has been endorsed by deletion review. See also all previous deletion discussions about this article. This page is only for discussion of possible reliable sources about the GNAA. Irrelevant comments may be removed.

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)

I'm taking this back to DRV soon

I'm afraid that I am totally opposed to the way that this was deleted. I am going to take it back to DRV and start asking some fairly searching questions as to why this was deleted. We have had 18 deletion nominations, then it was speedily deleted. If that's not pushing things, I don't know what is. If it basically survived 18 nominations, then I don't see why it was removed in such a way. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The deletion underwent an extremely long deletion review which ended in a consensus to endorse deletion. Unless and until new reliable sources are suggested on this page, I think the process has come to its conclusion. bikeable (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with bikeable; while it's not ideal that you weren't able to play more of a role in the article's AFD/DRV, the community has spoken and endorsed deletion. Ral315 (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article did not "survive 18 nominations" - after the 9th noms 10-17 were all started as jokes or by trolls. Kimchi.sg 12:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  What's more, over the course of all those nominations, nobody ever came up with one example of non-trivial coverage in an independent source. It's not like they didn't have a chance. -GTBacchus 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• And the DRV will get speedy closed as invalid. There was a very good reason this article was deleted and that decision was endorsed at DRV. Misplaced Pages got trolled, you got trolled... let's just let it die and move on. --W.marsh 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So the bullies have spoken I see. Disgusting behaviour. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I tried to oppose this blatant violation of policies, but had my arms twisted. If you log a protest, just let me know, and I will second it. `'mikkanarxi 07:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Why bother? Like I say, the bullies have spoken. This article is an important part of Internet history. Heck, we have a weebles article! I don't see anyone warring about that... IMO, people want this article deleted because it's so offensive, not because of any notability or verifiability claims. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are verifiable sources that speak of Weebles. There were none in the article on the GNAA. Policy has spoken. -- Ec5618 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion policy was violated because a couple of bullies wanted it. Don't sweep the armtwisting under the carpet. If you feel you are right, why the procedure was violated? Boslhevik Revolution. `'mikkanarxi 08:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • If it was actually an important part of Internet history, a reliable source besides Misplaced Pages would have cared enough to write about these guys. So far, no one has produced any evidence of that. Only Misplaced Pages got taken in by these guys... everyone else just banned them from their forums and moved on. --W.marsh 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, those who still oppose the deletion, are still welcome to find reliable sources for this article. It was deleted becuase it could not be verified. HighInBC 14:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

this article does get quoted a lot

see: and: