Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

Template:Db-botnomainreviewed The article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination); deletion was endorsed by Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America.

NOTE: This page is to discuss the possibility of recreation of the article based on reliable sources as per Wikipedia's policy at WP:V. It is not to whine "But I like it." It is not to attack the decision of previous deletion. If this page slides down into another whine and bitch page, those comments will be deleted. If Users continue in that vein, they will be blocked from editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Requirements for an article on this ... group.

We would need the following:

1. A coherent definition of the group, it's activities, and it's organization, with at least one source.
2. Notability of the group, explicitly detailed in mainstream news articles, shows, etc with at least TWO sources.
3. Notable incident that can be sourced from many places.
4. Modus operandi with at least two sources.

Thoughts? --[[User:Elaragirl|Elar]--Can Not 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)]agirl^Talk|Count 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Three isn't needed, because notability of the group is enough, and I don't see why four is needed either. I also don't think that there's any chance it would be deleted if notability were the only concern, it's just not having reliable sources that's really the problem. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. If there are reliable sources that something exists, that doesn't mean that it's notable. I can find reliable sources that my house exists, but nobody is going to want to write an article about it. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, I disagree. I've never heard of this group, and I can't find any real evidence it exists at all, much less that's it's notable. If a stupid adolescent boy says he's acting in the name of GNAA, that doesn't mean such a group exists. For a *good* article on GNAA, those are what I see as needed. Anything less and it will simply be a recreation of the original which is now gone. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Elaragirl is right. Those are the criteria necessary to make sure such a messy circle of WP:N vs. WP:NOFEEDING vs. WP:DENY is not relaunched again.Circeus 03:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this group needs more "mainstream" sources than other groups to establish notability. If a stupid adolescent boy (or a stupid 16-year old girl) says he is acting in the name of the GNAA, then there something there, even if it's just a shared concept. Many online movements or memes do not rise to the level of what I would call actual groups, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are not notable. I agree with Elaragirl about the requirements for a good article, but we can't just expect an article to pop up fully sourced without it being a bunch of independent research. This article must be allowed to develop without getting deleted. Don't like it? Make it better. WP:DENY is not policy. WP:CENSOR is, so surely I can see what made this article so bad. <bitch removed as per above - User:Zoe|(talk)> Savant45 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V. Pwned. Goodbye. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article existed for months, with multiple attempts at deletion, multiple demands for sources, none were forthcoming. There were many chances to source, but nobody came up with any. WP:V is policy. Abide by it. Also abide by the note at the top of this page. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to 1:
GNAA is a group of people who use the Internet to coordinate Internet-based attacks against various persons and organizations for amusement. Its activities are numerous and varied. They include attacks against Slashdot, Xanga, AOL, countless forums, IRC channels, blogs, point to point networks, etc. GNAA members have produced a significant amount of software for the purpose of causing disruption, including Last Measure, ASIAN, countless programs for flooding forums, breaking captchas, etc. If, by "organization", you mean GNAA's command structure, it is chaotic. However, GNAA has always been led by Timecop. This information can be verified by the most basic investigation, like by joining #gnaa and asking "who runs GNAA?" This is more information than is available on the command structures of many other groups the identities of whose members are secret (for instance, Iraqi insurgent groups).

Response to 2:
GNAA's Mac OS X hoax was mentioned on an episode of the television show Attack of the Show.
GNAA was mentioned in the Scotsman article "Lazy Guide to Net Culture: Dark side of the rainbow".

Response to 3:
The GNAA-repeated-over-and-over Mac OS X release: http://www.google.com/search?q=gnaa+mac+os+x+gnaa+repeated

Response to 4:
http://www.lastmeasure.com/
http://trollforge.org/
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/allencastro/xanga.gnaa
http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005-January/030506.html

It is not the responsibility of those who call for sources to have to do the research. And, indeed, signing onto GNAA and asking "who runs it" would fail our requirements at WP:OR and WP:RS. None of the resources you have provided satisfy our guideline at WP:RS for multiple, non-trivial sources in which the subject of the article is the primary focus of the source. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the rules conflict with common sense. Nobody researching the GNAA would have difficulty verifying that the group exists, or finding evidence of its many, many attacks. You can choose to follow FOO:BAR to the letter and insist that something isn't real if it (in this case, an almost entirely Internet-based phenomenon) hasn't been featured in the New York Times if you want. It just seems wrong for Wikipedia to go out of its way to conceal information about this obviously influential group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Lewis (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

We don't insist that it isn't true. That's irrelevant, because something being true does not mean it is verifiable. And if something is unverifiable, we can't have an article, because we don't know that it's true. -Amark moo! 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand. You can't have an article unless you can verify it. You can't verify it because verifying it would require doing some research on the web, and doing research is against the rules. *I* did some research and came to the conclusion that the GNAA is real and notable, but I can't tell anyone else using Wikipedia. Instead, I should write a book about it (or an article, if I happen to work at a major newspaper or magazine) and hope that someone else finds it, reads it, comes to Wikipedia, creates the article, and paraphrases my conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Lewis (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

All it would take would be multiple news articles in which GNAA is the primary subject of the article, and the source of the article is peer-reviewed and recognized as legit. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Brian Lewis, you clearly don't understand. The sources have to be both notable and verifiable. I can , with little effort, gather up a couple of idjits and hack four sites and call myself GNAA. Six months later, some other idiot can gather up a couple of idjits and do the same thing and call themselves GNAA. The article is maintaining that this is a single group with some sort of coordinating goal. Any fool can make a chatroom or throw up a temporary webpage, but some of the claims in that article were completely unsourced.

To details:

Your Answer to 1 fails in that there is no THIRD-PARTY VERIFIED knowledge of who "runs" GNAA...or even if GNAA is a single group. Period. Saying "Timecop" leads it is useless since who knows who Timecop is?

Your Answer to 2 is a complete failure. The Attack of the Show is not a compilation of this sort of thing, nor is the Scotsman. Try a web security magazine, or maybe CNET.com or even *gasp* Computer Associates. Even if we did allow those sources (which I doubt did any real checking into the matter at hand) they aren't news, and even if we magically allowed THAT, you still have the problem with ...

Your Answer to 3, which is bollocks. Your copied and pasted search only produces 411 Ghits. After removing blogs and wikipedia mirrors (which copied this page) and the gnauk.co.uk site, you have less than 100 ghits. That's not notable, that's certainly not widely verifiable.

Your Answer to 4 didn't even include a single mainstream site.

We want something mainstream that no one can argue with. If they're so notable, as you claim, then there should be some newspaper coverage on their activities. Original research such as investigating the group yourself is not allowed because we have no way of knowing you aren't a member of GNAA, or someone trying to , pardon me for saying this, just recreating the article. This is -- or should be -- common sense. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second. A CNET article would be great, but 100 or 200 blogs are not notable? Did you just stab logic in the face? 200 people who spent their time writing an article about are not verifyable just because they don't recieve 100 billion users each? I don't think you understand. Many mainstream websites would clearly refuse to post an article about the GNAA because they have policies against feeding the trolls. When trolling, it is clearly disappointing when no one gives a response. When you ask for a mainstream site, you are clearly asking for too much, or something next to impossible. Wikipedia, unlike other mainstream sites, is not censored.--Can Not 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What you utterly fail to understand, Brian Lewis, is that what we are desperately trying to avoid is another war over deleting or not the article. I agree that WP:DENY is no policy, and should not even be a guideline (I disagree with the mass deletion of subpages of Wikipedia:Long term abuse, for example).

To avoid that warring, the article has to be steel and concrete as far as its sourcing goes.Circeus 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Elaragirl, newspapers are never up-to-date on the events and happenings of the internet, and they certainly do not research troll groups or report anything of the like. The mainstream media of the internet should be considered internet/website based news sources. You just don't hear of troll groups in the newspapers or on your local evening news, they aren't going to say, "This evening, an internet-based group called, "Gay Niggers Association of America", GNAA for short, temporarily shut-down 'insert blog-name here'." That doesn't exactly sound very good, does it? Many online phenomena or incidents have been isolated to the internet or are only picked-up by a newspaper or news show a very long period after the incident/phenomena has occurred. As well as being featured on an actual tv show, that rarely occurs. GNAA should not need to be featured on a show or mentioned in a newspaper to be considered a real group of trollers. if you search through Google you can find that this group has left a footprint on blogs, forums, and tech sites, whether it be big or small. BombDiggady 09:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody to my knowledge is questioning whether the group is real. Without verifiable published information about them, we can't write an article about them that isn't original research, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Video

It gets mentioned here in this news video ^_^ Only minor though. Milto LOL pia 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Did that actually air on CNN? The audio isn't really synced up to her mouth, the video is choppy... it appears to be cut left and right. Also there's nothing on CNN.com about it that I could find. --W.marsh 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments about how the article could be made

I've notice people have mentioned we don't know if it is one group or multiple groups, this however shouldn't be used as a reason to not have the article. All that needs to be done is not to refer to it as a single group in the article. So this is a "problem" that is easily fixed. Mathmo ^Talk 11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

wow. One problem down, 494,392,433 to go? You may be here a while. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 11:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But remember the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. So I thought I'd make a single step in the right direction. I'll be popping back from time to time to make a few more steps. Though certainly not planning to make all ten zillion of them on my own! Mathmo ^Talk 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)