George Herbert wrote:
On 11/28/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
What definition of "notable" are you using? The only definition of that word that matters at Wikipedia is: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's not true of GNAA, ergo they're not "notable", which simply means that it's impossible to write a properly verifiable article about them. We don't want to keep an unverfiable article around, no matter how much "consensus" may hoot and holler for it, so we delete it.
People who want to know about GNAA can still look them up at ED, which has no problem covering topics that we eschew.
The problem with this trend is that it relegates certain aspects of internet culture which tend not to get press coverage into the dustbin.
As much as I hate GNAA and everyone involved in it, it IS notable among the realm of internet troll activities.
If we have the (harmless, real, but equally badly documented) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.fan.warlord entry....
(Offline at the moment, so I can't read the article) - Was Warlord from MIT?