Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (3rd nomination) - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Wishing does not make it so. Nomination of an article that has been AfDed before and is well-sourced requires a clear explanation for any claim of non-notability. This AfD lacks that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Anonymous (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

With the exception of Project Chanology, Anonymous is a non-notable troll group with few to no reliable sources, with the exception of a heavily-sensationalized report by a Los Angeles news station. The Gay Nigger Association of America article was famously deleted under similar grounds. Delete Anonymous (group), but keep Project Chanology, as it is really the only notable thing "Anonymous" has done, and has been heavily covered by the media. Scootey (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
  • Strong Keep. In addition to the Fox11 thing, I see numerous sources that meet WP:RS covering them, and many with no connection or only a tangential connection to Chanology. Look at references 47 to the end, and the majority of them are not connected to scientology. I see a several things in there, including LA Weekly, a Wired article (two of them, actually), a Wired blog (which doesn't count quite as much), NPR, 7 News, Irish times, 9News, Associated Press, ABC News, Toronto Sun and Global News. None of those sources mention Chanology. The article clearly and unquestionably meets WP:N, WP:V, and any other acronym you can throw at it. Firestorm Talk 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; you are joking. If all our articles had as many third-party, reliable references as this one WP:N wouldn't need to exist. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Anon is far greater than a group of internet trolls. Their actions are not just on message boards or websites. They've received extensive news coverage etc.. The first entry on this AFL leads me to believe there's some hidden reason why this article which should obviously be kept keeps getting nominated for absurd reasons.--Nefariousski (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anonymous is a troll group, regardless of the fact that the majority of their publicity is from Project Chanology. And from what I've seen the only thing that's really notable about them is Project Chanology, which should no doubt be kept. That's where the majority of news sources are from. Scootey (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority, yes, But I can find at least six sources on that page alone (where three are the standard for a decent pass of WP:N) that are about other activities. I'd advise you to retract this AfD before things WP:SNOWball. Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP rarely considers anything as a reliable source unless its Mainstream media crud. Of course you could turn to Wikinews on what Anonymous has done in the past and present, but WP doesn't consider WN reliable either. If this is the third time to try and delete this article, and it failed two other times, then why are we wasting our time with this? I would consider this mass request of deletion of this article as disruption. DragonFire1024 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep I agree with the points with DragonFire1024, Firestorm, and others in past attempts to delete this article. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Unless the nominator presents some explanation for how an article with 61 references fails WP:N, and some explanation of why the previous two nominations did not settle this matter, I will close this nomination tomorrow as a speedy keep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to request that this AFD be allowed to run its full course, so that a firm and conclusive consensus can be reached, once and for all. Otherwise, we'll be back here in a few months with another one and another one, just like what happened to GNAA. The reason it took 18 nominations to get it deleted is that they kept on being speedy kept without establishing a firm consensus. Firestorm Talk 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two previous AfDs, including one of the most overwhelming keeps I've ever seen, do not to me suggest a lack of clear consensus. Furthermore, AfD is not for the nomination of articles that have nothing wrong with them. It is transparently and empirically clear that this article passes WP:N. Unless the nominator has some explanation for why that fact should be overlooked, this nomination is querulous and disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Look at the first AfD if you want evidence of wider input to form consensus; they had around 20-30 comments. Keeping this around simply makes it more likely that 4chan and whatnot will get a hold of it, and I don't want an SPA clusterfuck. Ironholds (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm keep- You're seriously going to try to tell me that something with all the verifiable sources this article has, that is that obviously notable, needs deleted? No. Just no. Meets notability standards by a few dozen lightyears. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I WP:AGF that you dont really mean to make a personal attack by calling them Trolls. Even so, as you say they conducted something notable and I believe they have had an effect on society, thus making them notable. Notability is not fleeting. And I dont see the reason for mentioning GMAA in the Nom either, as that cuts very close to a Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST argument. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went through the sources, and at least 40 of the article's 58 sources were about Anonymous's attack on Scientology, aka Project Chanology. Another problem with this article is that it's difficult to define Anonymous as an entity. Some people appear to think anything that's done by users on 4chan /b/ is in the name of Anonymous, as with what /b/ had done against the abuser of "Dusty the cat"...however I could not find anything about "Anonymous" tracking down the abuser. (Because of this, I had removed the section.) Scootey (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    40 of the 58 - so 18 are about other things, then? Ironholds (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The non-Chanology material is sourced and has attained enough notability that it merits inclusion. evildeathmath 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.