333:
this presents a difficulty, as the media is often just flat-out wrong. However, that does not change the verifiability or notability of the subject. As I said elsewhere, hopefully
Knowledge will grow into sync with the rest of the internet and stop being dependent on 'traditional' media. At that point, articles such as this would be able to be expanded and match truth as well as verifiability. But as it stands now, this is how it works.
371:
Whenever the newspaper or TV news does a story on something I know about, I am always amazed at how badly they get it wrong. Nom is experiencing the same phenomenon about something he/she knows about. It really brings into question WP's over-reliance on official/old-media "reliable sources", but that
286:
and !news. While it's true that
Knowledge's portrayl of anon isn't entirely accurate, that is because the media coverage isn't entirely accuarate, and Knowledge must go by those. Until some reporter goes to /b/ and does a report on what's going on there, there isn't anything that can be done about
156:. In the original AfD, it was decided Keep per notability and an abundance of sources. However, on behalf of the majority of this article's focus including 3 of the 4 major imageboards, the Insurgent Wiki, and the Partyvan IRC network, we request a deletion of the article on the following grounds:
332:
for details). Knowledge deletes articles based on the notability and verifiability of the subject, based mostly on mainstream secondary media sources, and to a lesser extent, unsourced negative information about living persons. Granted, for not-well-understood things like 4chan and ebaumsworld,
390:
I sympathize with the nominator in that regard; I very nearly laughed my head off the first time I saw that FOX report. In anon circles, FOX is now often referred to as 'Faux news'. I have forever categorized FOX as an unreliable news source because of the sheer amount of exaggeration in that
181:
The entire misleading article is highly controversial, and because of a constant troll battle over it along with a complete lack of applicable sources, we propose deletion of the
Anonymous article until a more agreed-up article can be created.
419:
I think it's clear that the article is biased because of the organization using the internet as its primary front. The sources are unreliable, while the importance of
Anonymous is overstated and could easily be merged with a similar article
204:. Notability is clearly asserted through scads of reliable third party sources, and while this isn't exactly GA class material, it's far from inaccurate or poorly written. Oh yeah, and the last AfD was closed only a month ago.
498:. Your sudden apperance out of nowhere and !voting against consensus are especially concerning -- and furthermore, how are the sources "unreliable"? They sure seem to qualify as non-trivial, third party coverage.
84:
79:
391:
report. But the deletion of the article isn't the answer. Hopefully, over time, Knowledge's policies and guidelines revolving around primary sources will evolve into something that encompasses both truth
314:
This is not a case of KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. The first one was due to a suspected lack of sources or relevance. This is because of blatant and complete inaccuracies in the entire article.
257:
It is on the behalf of the subjects of the article. At that rate, does WP:BIO for living people apply to this at all? Perhaps a group is not a person, but in some way the concept could apply...
517:
Hang on, let me get this straight. Someone comes out of nowhere, signs up, and expresses an opinion? Dear god, it's almost like this "Knowledge" thing is open to the public.
145:
74:
360:
288:
112:
107:
116:
526:
508:
485:
467:
429:
407:
381:
363:
341:
323:
307:
266:
250:
231:
214:
191:
99:
57:
446:
17:
522:
442:
295:, which is really all that is left of your nomination, in and of itself doesn't make a good argument, especially with the
174:
53:
552:
357:
36:
152:
The article on
Anonymous was created to help explain the concept of Anonymous because of the attention drawn by
551:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
518:
160:
That the media presented is not properly reflective of the nature of the "group" and have blatant inaccuracies
163:
That the article, while locked from anonymous editors, silences the opinions of the majority of the subject
103:
296:
201:
49:
481:
438:
425:
282:
notable given the recent events with
Scientology, which there have been more than one of, thus passing
354:
499:
458:
241:
205:
477:
434:
421:
405:
339:
305:
283:
319:
262:
187:
153:
95:
63:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
227:
396:
377:
495:
400:
334:
300:
292:
395:
verifability rather than just verifiability. In any case, that's something for the
200:
This user clearly seems to have an agenda to get the page deleted because he or she
329:
315:
258:
183:
133:
457:
The above is the user's second edit; account was created less than an hour ago.
223:
167:
353:
Sorry guys, but you haven't really presented a valid deletion argument here.
328:
Knowledge does not delete articles based on the content of the article (Read
373:
278:. Not only does this seem to be a bad faith nomination, but the subject is
240:
For the record, the "on behalf of..." really makes this smack of bad faith.
222:
bad faith nomination IMHO, notability established through citations
166:
That because the inaccurate articles are the only ones that meet
545:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
287:
that under the current policies and guidelines. Furthermore,
177:
is being stifled causing the above problems to be unresolvable
85:
Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (3rd nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (2nd nomination)
140:
129:
125:
121:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
555:). No further edits should be made to this page.
476:Thank you for noticing such a relevant issue
8:
372:is an argument for another place and time.
75:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group)
72:
7:
70:
24:
48:. IAR and SNOW invoked, clearly.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
170:, the article is not neutral.
289:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED
572:
527:16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
509:05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
486:05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
468:05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
430:05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
408:05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
382:05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
364:05:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
342:05:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
324:05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
308:04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
267:05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
251:04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
232:04:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
215:04:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
192:04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
58:05:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
548:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
496:Single purpose account
69:AfDs for this article:
447:few or no other edits
449:outside this topic.
220:Snowball speedy keep
519:PretentiousNameHere
506:
465:
450:
248:
212:
154:Project Chanology
96:Anonymous (group)
64:Anonymous (group)
563:
550:
504:
502:
501:Ten Pound Hammer
463:
461:
460:Ten Pound Hammer
432:
246:
244:
243:Ten Pound Hammer
210:
208:
207:Ten Pound Hammer
143:
137:
119:
50:SynergeticMaggot
44:The result was
34:
571:
570:
566:
565:
564:
562:
561:
560:
559:
553:deletion review
546:
500:
459:
242:
206:
202:doesn't like it
139:
110:
94:
91:
89:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
569:
567:
558:
557:
540:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
512:
511:
505:and his otters
489:
488:
471:
470:
464:and his otters
452:
451:
413:
412:
411:
410:
385:
384:
366:
347:
346:
345:
344:
311:
310:
272:
271:
270:
269:
254:
253:
247:and his otters
235:
234:
217:
211:and his otters
179:
178:
171:
164:
161:
150:
149:
90:
88:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
568:
556:
554:
549:
543:
542:
541:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
503:
497:
494:Three words:
493:
492:
491:
490:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
473:
472:
469:
462:
456:
455:
454:
453:
448:
444:
440:
436:
431:
427:
423:
418:
415:
414:
409:
406:
404:
403:
398:
394:
389:
388:
387:
386:
383:
379:
375:
370:
367:
365:
362:
359:
356:
352:
349:
348:
343:
340:
338:
337:
331:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
309:
306:
304:
303:
298:
294:
290:
285:
281:
277:
274:
273:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
252:
245:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
216:
209:
203:
199:
196:
195:
194:
193:
189:
185:
176:
172:
169:
165:
162:
159:
158:
157:
155:
147:
142:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
547:
544:
539:
416:
401:
392:
368:
350:
335:
301:
291:is bad, and
279:
275:
219:
197:
180:
151:
45:
43:
31:
28:
445:) has made
351:Speedy keep
297:IDONTLIKEIT
276:Speedy keep
198:Speedy keep
46:Speedy keep
280:obviously
175:WP:IGNORE
443:contribs
402:Celarnor
336:Celarnor
302:Celarnor
284:ONEEVENT
146:View log
478:Bomblol
435:Bomblol
422:Bomblol
358:megalon
299:tone.
113:protect
108:history
417:Delete
316:Kakama
259:Kakama
224:Fosnez
184:Kakama
141:delete
117:delete
330:WP:DP
173:That
144:) – (
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
523:talk
482:talk
439:talk
426:talk
397:pump
378:talk
374:Z00r
369:Keep
361:2000
355:Maxa
320:talk
263:talk
228:talk
188:talk
168:WP:V
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
54:talk
507:•
466:•
393:and
293:IAR
249:•
213:•
525:)
484:)
441:•
433:—
428:)
399:.
380:)
322:)
265:)
230:)
190:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
56:)
521:(
480:(
437:(
424:(
376:(
318:(
261:(
226:(
186:(
148:)
138:(
136:)
98:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.