On 11/29/06, Sam Hocevar <sam(a)zoy.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006, Tony Jacobs wrote:
Well, most of them weren't independent
sources, being links to gnaa.us and
gnaauk.co.uk.
Of those that were independent, they fell into three classes: some made
only a passing mention of GNAA, some were articles where GNAA was only
mentioned in the message board responses at the bottom, and those that were
actually *about* GNAA were blogs (there were one or two of those).
This is not true and makes me wonder how many people making those
claims really have read the article.
OK, I just looked at the version from 26 September 2006 (which is on
the Citizendium pilot wiki). The description given above of the
sources seems accurate. Can you point us to which source doesn't fit
that description.
Reading the article, if all of it is true then the organization does
seem notable to me, and it seems to me there *must* be some reliable
third party sources out there. That said, I don't know of any, so I
have to agree with the deletion with the understanding that a valid
deletion doesn't preclude someone writing a good article from reliable
third party sources in the future.
Anthony