193:
667:. 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.)
555:
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
390:
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
338:
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
458:
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
579:
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
641:. 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
598:
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.
309:
Anonymous is a weird case in that it's debatable whether it counts as a BLP (the whole meme/biography thing is a bit gray, though we're trending towards deleting meme/biographies). However, it's evident that
Anonymous have only has a
620:- 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.
84:
79:
339:
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
48:. 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.
409:
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
200:
157:
145:
74:
156:, 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
537:, and some explanation of why the previous two nominations did not settle this matter, I will close this nomination tomorrow as a speedy keep.
112:
107:
431:(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
116:
768:
749:
730:
690:
676:
655:
629:
608:
593:
568:
546:
521:
490:
468:
444:
422:
400:
380:
359:
324:
183:
99:
57:
209:
584:. Unless the nominator has some explanation for why that fact should be overlooked, this nomination is querulous and disruptive.
239:
17:
642:
663:
I went through the sources, and at least 40 of the article's 58 sources were about
Anonymous's attack on Scientology, aka
757:
I would close this immediately, except for the usually responsible and experienced
Wikipedian supporting the deletion.
225:
455:
371:
joking. If all our articles had as many third-party, reliable references as this one WP:N wouldn't need to exist.
198:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
783:
36:
454:
WP rarely considers anything as a reliable source unless its
Mainstream media crud. Of course you could turn to
782:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
464:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
479:
I agree with the points with DragonFire1024, Firestorm, and others in past attempts to delete this article. --
589:
542:
53:
396:
271:
174:, as it is really the only notable thing "Anonymous" has done, and has been heavily covered by the media.
103:
745:
625:
255:
229:
502:
Looking at the previous attempts to delete, its basically the same argument as the last time around
700:
The non-Chanology material is sourced and has attained enough notability that it merits inclusion.
686:
604:
460:
440:
376:
214:
701:
585:
538:
261:
192:
49:
672:
664:
646:
418:
410:
392:
315:
179:
171:
164:
153:
95:
63:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
741:
621:
533:
Unless the nominator presents some explanation for how an article with 61 references fails
556:
it deleted is that they kept on being speedy kept without establishing a firm consensus.
682:
600:
558:
507:
436:
432:
372:
349:
311:
740:
multiple RS covering them outside the chanology stuff (already listed by
Firestorm) --
764:
413:, which should no doubt be kept. That's where the majority of news sources are from.
668:
414:
335:
320:
289:
277:
245:
175:
133:
224:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
581:
534:
503:
344:
340:
637:- I WP:AGF that you dont really mean to make a personal attack by calling them
759:
334:. In addition to the Fox11 thing, I see numerous sources that meet
776:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
187:
218:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
314:, which doesn't indicate notability. Either merge it into
85:
Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (3rd nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (2nd nomination)
427:
The majority, yes, But I can find at least six sources
140:
129:
125:
121:
160:
article was famously deleted under similar grounds.
681:40 of the 58 - so 18 are about other things, then?
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
786:). No further edits should be made to this page.
347:, and any other acronym you can throw at it.
238:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
208:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
318:, or delete it. I'm not fussed to either.
212:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
232:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
75:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group)
72:
7:
506:. I push for speedy keep because of
70:
24:
158:Gay Nigger Association of America
191:
391:nominated for absurd reasons.--
312:short burst of reliable sources
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
643:Knowledge:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST
1:
228:on the part of others and to
803:
769:00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
750:20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
731:15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
691:06:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
677:05:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
656:02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
630:02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
609:02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
594:02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
569:02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
547:02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
522:00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
491:00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
469:23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
445:05:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
423:05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
401:23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
381:23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
360:23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
325:23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
184:21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
58:02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
779:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
270:; accounts blocked for
240:single-purpose accounts
210:policies and guidelines
152:With the exception of
69:AfDs for this article:
222:by counting votes.
201:not a majority vote
429:on that page alone
665:Project Chanology
654:
653:
411:Project Chanology
316:Project Chanology
303:
302:
299:
226:assume good faith
172:Project Chanology
165:Anonymous (group)
154:Project Chanology
96:Anonymous (group)
64:Anonymous (group)
44:The result was
794:
781:
728:
726:
724:
722:
720:
718:
716:
652:
651:
649:
567:
565:
519:
514:
488:
483:
358:
356:
297:
285:
269:
253:
234:
204:, but instead a
195:
188:
143:
137:
119:
34:
802:
801:
797:
796:
795:
793:
792:
791:
790:
784:deletion review
777:
714:
712:
710:
708:
706:
704:
702:
647:
559:
557:
517:
512:
486:
481:
350:
348:
307:Delete or merge
287:
275:
259:
243:
230:sign your posts
139:
110:
94:
91:
89:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
800:
798:
789:
788:
772:
771:
752:
734:
733:
695:
694:
693:
658:
632:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
574:
573:
572:
571:
550:
549:
527:
526:
525:
524:
472:
471:
461:DragonFire1024
449:
448:
447:
403:
384:
383:
362:
328:
327:
301:
300:
196:
150:
149:
90:
88:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
799:
787:
785:
780:
774:
773:
770:
766:
762:
761:
756:
753:
751:
747:
743:
739:
736:
735:
732:
729:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
659:
657:
650:
644:
640:
636:
633:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:Facepalm keep
616:
610:
606:
602:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
586:Phil Sandifer
583:
578:
577:
576:
575:
570:
566:
564:
563:
554:
553:
552:
551:
548:
544:
540:
539:Phil Sandifer
536:
532:
529:
528:
523:
520:
515:
509:
505:
501:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
489:
484:
478:
470:
466:
462:
457:
453:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
402:
398:
394:
389:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
361:
357:
355:
354:
346:
342:
337:
333:
330:
329:
326:
323:
322:
317:
313:
308:
305:
304:
295:
291:
283:
279:
273:
267:
263:
257:
251:
247:
241:
237:
233:
231:
227:
221:
217:
216:
211:
207:
203:
202:
197:
194:
190:
189:
186:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
166:
163:
159:
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:
50:Phil Sandifer
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
778:
775:
758:
754:
737:
697:
660:
648:Exit2DOS2000
638:
634:
617:
561:
560:
530:
516:
511:
499:
485:
480:
476:
474:
473:
459:disruption.
451:
428:
406:
393:Nefariousski
387:
368:
364:
352:
351:
331:
319:
306:
293:
281:
272:sockpuppetry
265:
254:; suspected
249:
235:
223:
219:
213:
205:
199:
168:
161:
151:
45:
43:
31:
28:
742:Enric Naval
738:Strong keep
622:Umbralcorax
500:Speedy Keep
477:Strong Keep
452:Strong Keep
433:WP:SNOWball
388:Strong Keep
332:Strong Keep
645:argument.
405:Anonymous
206:discussion
683:Ironholds
601:Ironholds
562:Firestorm
437:Ironholds
373:Ironholds
353:Firestorm
262:canvassed
256:canvassed
215:consensus
456:Wikinews
294:username
288:{{subst:
282:username
276:{{subst:
266:username
260:{{subst:
250:username
244:{{subst:
146:View log
669:Scootey
661:Comment
531:Comment
518:Bowling
508:WP:SNOW
487:Bowling
415:Scootey
321:Sceptre
258:users:
176:Scootey
113:protect
108:history
639:Trolls
367:; you
167:, but
162:Delete
141:delete
117:delete
336:WP:RS
236:Note:
144:) – (
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
765:talk
755:keep
746:talk
698:Keep
687:talk
673:talk
635:Keep
626:talk
605:talk
590:talk
582:WP:N
543:talk
535:WP:N
504:WP:N
465:talk
441:talk
419:talk
397:talk
377:talk
365:Keep
345:WP:V
341:WP:N
180:talk
169:keep
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
54:talk
46:Keep
760:DGG
513:Zac
482:Zac
369:are
290:csp
286:or
278:csm
246:spa
220:not
767:)
748:)
689:)
675:)
628:)
607:)
592:)
545:)
510:--
467:)
443:)
435:.
421:)
407:is
399:)
379:)
343:,
296:}}
284:}}
274::
268:}}
252:}}
242::
182:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
56:)
763:(
744:(
727:h
725:t
723:a
721:m
719:h
717:t
715:a
713:e
711:d
709:l
707:i
705:v
703:e
685:(
671:(
624:(
603:(
588:(
541:(
475:*
463:(
439:(
417:(
395:(
375:(
298:.
292:|
280:|
264:|
248:|
178:(
148:)
138:(
136:)
98:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
