554:. The second is of absolutely no consequence to AfD -- that's what maintenance templates and editing are for. As for notability, it is defined by the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. There's no argument, as I perceive here, that there is significant coverage in reliable sources
239:
Despite the fact the
Patriotic Nigras are mentioned in name by media outlets and some lesser known researchers I do not believe that this alone make a topic or organisation "notable." The page is simply about a group which has been known to "troll" and "grief" on popular social media websites. Their
235:
It may be noted that I have already nominated this article for deletion in the past. It is important to note that I am not bias for or against this group however as an editor and keen contributor I do feel that this
Article in some sense undermines Knowledge principles. My main reason for nominating
423:
Can you clarify what you mean by that? What makes you think that the article's topic holds no academic, research or public interest? The sources presented in the article in its current state clearly demonstrate that the topic is the subject of numerous academic and news articles. I'm unclear about
243:
I argue that this group is simply a small selection of unknown persons who disrupt online virtual worlds, this is something anyone can do and stand together with a so called "group" and claim responsibility. That group may then go onto receiving minor media coverage by local news outlets and then
267:
Their presence is verifiable, but not notable by WP:ORG. The article reads like a rap sheet of their antics and also has some WP:NPOV issues (mainly from WP:UNDUE) that I don't think will go away—this is a minor article's fifth AfD. The majority of the sources are not reliable and some are
407:. Insufficiently notable. A OP says, article does not serve any academic, research or public interest. It's just offensive trolling nonsense. Some offensive trolling nonsense could rise to the level of notability, I suppose. These dudes don't.
204:
494:. That's all that's needed, and that's what is already present in the article. I don't mean to make bad-faith assumptions, but the people in favor of deletion's rationale seems to border more along the lines of
102:
97:
92:
87:
653:. As I quote from the nomination, "Despite the fact the Patriotic Nigras are mentioned in name by media outlets I do not believe that this alone make a topic or organisation "notable" - err, sorry,
461:- According to who? The nomination even points out that they've been written about by academic researchers, and even if not, that's for the secondary sources to determine not for us.
390:. I don't understand the argument that although the group has drawn the attention of the media and academic researchers it still isn't notable. How are you defining notability? -
353:
236:
this article for deletion is because I sincerely believe that the topic is not notable and does not encompass a wide range of discussion which would interest general readers.
157:
323:
198:
595:
It's somewhat remarkably well sourced given the subject matter, surely passes notability requirements as it has in the past. The remaining deletion arguments smell like
520:
82:
440:
301:(emphasis mine) -- In other words, please don't issue another bolded !vote after nominating (you are, of course, welcome to comment along the way, though). --—
164:
498:. I don't like or condone this sort of activity from internet trolls either, but I also know that that has no bearing on Knowledge's standard of notability.
621:
574:
they troll/grief, which indeed anyone can do at any time; we have an article about them because of the coverage they've received when they
295:
Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion
247:
I do not believe
Patriotic Nigras serves any academic, research or public interest and therefore an article on Knowledge is inappropriate.
130:
125:
134:
670:
637:
608:
587:
536:
509:
478:
452:
433:
416:
399:
375:
345:
310:
277:
268:
self-published. While I admire the attempt to document and memorialize this piece of
Internet culture, now is not the time or place
256:
117:
65:
490:- I concur with Thibbs, I'm not sure how exactly the nominator or the "delete" !votes are defining notability. The article has
219:
17:
186:
568:
this group is simply a small selection of unknown persons who disrupt online virtual worlds, this is something anyone can do
240:
exploits may have drawn public attention and researchers attention however, again this doesn't prove the group is notable.
570:. The activities of the subject have nothing to do with notability. It isn't the case that we have an article on them
546:- 4 previous nominations, 4 keeps, and seemingly no new information here. Presented are two reasons for deletion: (1)
297:
nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations
290:
53:
633:
562:
reasons). Notability -- and
Knowledge in general -- is indifferent to judgments like, for example, the article is
180:
689:
40:
527:, just out of curiosity, which of the sources are "self-published" and what made you come to such a conclusion?
176:
367:
337:
504:
465:- Again, it's not for us to decide what's "just" anything when determining notability -- it's importance
273:
252:
685:
629:
596:
495:
412:
226:
121:
36:
665:
528:
524:
284:
269:
248:
580:
532:
471:
303:
212:
564:
simply about a group which has been known to "troll" and "grief" on popular social media websites
558:
they aren't notable (of course, subjects that are notable are sometimes deleted for a variety of
358:
328:
499:
192:
61:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
684:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
604:
448:
429:
408:
395:
113:
71:
658:
625:
386:- It is supported in depth by multiple independent reliable sources. It clearly meets
244:
could go onto making a
Knowledge page which in fact further glorifies their actions.
654:
650:
617:
491:
387:
552:
does not encompass a wide range of discussion which would interest general readers.
57:
151:
600:
444:
425:
391:
492:
many third party reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail
649:, and all the previous nominations have resulted in keeping the article,
622:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (6th nomination)
678:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
519:- I completely agree with Thibbs and Sergecross73. Furthermore,
459:
article does not serve any academic, research or public interest
424:
what standard of notability you and the nom are applying here. -
469:
from the coverage it receives not the subject itself. --—
147:
143:
139:
103:
Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (5th nomination)
98:
Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (4th nomination)
93:
Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (3rd nomination)
88:
Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (2nd nomination)
616:
I agree with the keeps above. The article is clearly
211:
651:
perhaps repeatedly re-nominating it isn't a wise idea
354:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
692:). No further edits should be made to this page.
324:list of Video games-related deletion discussions
523:, from a prior AfD nom, still applies. Also,
441:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
225:
8:
439:Note: This debate has been included in the
352:Note: This debate has been included in the
322:Note: This debate has been included in the
438:
351:
321:
80:
567:
563:
551:
547:
462:
458:
294:
83:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras
463:It's just offensive trolling nonsense
7:
78:
24:
388:the general notability guidelines
578:so, which not everyone has. --—
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
278:23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
257:23:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
671:09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
638:04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
609:00:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
588:18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
537:01:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
510:16:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
479:18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
453:05:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
434:03:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
417:02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
400:23:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
376:20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
346:20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
311:17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
66:01:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
709:
681:Please do not modify it.
548:the topic is not notable
32:Please do not modify it.
77:AfDs for this article:
291:WP:Guide to deletion
48:The result was
645:- as this is the
455:
378:
374:
348:
344:
54:non-admin closure
700:
683:
668:
663:
647:fifth nomination
630:I am One of Many
585:
583:
507:
502:
476:
474:
372:
370:
364:
342:
340:
334:
308:
306:
288:
230:
229:
215:
167:
155:
137:
114:Patriotic Nigras
72:Patriotic Nigras
34:
708:
707:
703:
702:
701:
699:
698:
697:
696:
690:deletion review
679:
666:
659:
655:but yes it does
581:
579:
505:
500:
472:
470:
368:
363:
359:
338:
333:
329:
304:
302:
282:
265:Strong Delete -
172:
163:
128:
112:
109:
107:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
706:
704:
695:
694:
674:
673:
640:
611:
597:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
590:
582:Rhododendrites
540:
539:
513:
512:
496:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
484:
483:
482:
481:
473:Rhododendrites
436:
420:
419:
402:
380:
379:
361:
349:
331:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
305:Rhododendrites
233:
232:
169:
108:
106:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
79:
76:
74:
69:
52:. Snow keep. (
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
705:
693:
691:
687:
682:
676:
675:
672:
669:
664:
662:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
589:
584:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
521:this decision
518:
515:
514:
511:
508:
503:
497:
493:
489:
486:
485:
480:
475:
468:
464:
460:
457:
456:
454:
450:
446:
442:
437:
435:
431:
427:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
381:
377:
371:
366:
365:
355:
350:
347:
341:
336:
335:
325:
320:
319:
312:
307:
300:
298:
292:
286:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
266:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
245:
241:
237:
228:
224:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
178:
175:
174:Find sources:
170:
166:
162:
159:
153:
149:
145:
141:
136:
132:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
680:
677:
660:
646:
642:
620:and perhaps
613:
592:
575:
571:
559:
555:
543:
516:
501:Sergecross73
487:
466:
404:
383:
357:
327:
296:
264:
246:
242:
238:
234:
222:
216:
208:
201:
195:
189:
183:
173:
160:
49:
47:
31:
28:
667:(´ ･ ω ･ `)
643:Speedy keep
409:Herostratus
199:free images
661:Satellizer
624:should be
360:Rcsprinter
330:Rcsprinter
686:talk page
626:WP:SALTed
529:GuyHimGuy
525:olowe2011
285:Olowe2011
270:olowe2011
249:olowe2011
37:talk page
688:or in a
566:or that
550:and (2)
289:Per the
158:View log
39:or in a
572:because
517:Keep it
205:WP refs
193:scholar
131:protect
126:history
58:Natg 19
618:WP:GNG
601:LM2000
506:msg me
445:Thibbs
426:Thibbs
405:Delete
392:Thibbs
339:(yarn)
177:Google
135:delete
560:other
467:comes
369:(gas)
220:JSTOR
181:books
165:Stats
152:views
144:watch
140:links
16:<
634:talk
628:. --
614:Keep
605:talk
593:Keep
544:Keep
533:talk
488:Keep
449:talk
430:talk
413:talk
396:talk
384:Keep
274:talk
253:talk
213:FENS
187:news
148:logs
122:talk
118:edit
62:talk
50:keep
586:\\
576:did
556:but
477:\\
362:123
332:123
309:\\
227:TWL
156:– (
657:.
636:)
607:)
535:)
451:)
443:.
432:)
415:)
398:)
356:.
326:.
293::
276:)
255:)
207:)
150:|
146:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
124:|
120:|
64:)
56:)
632:(
603:(
599:.
531:(
447:(
428:(
411:(
394:(
373:@
343:@
299:.
287::
283:@
272:(
251:(
231:)
223:·
217:·
209:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
179:(
171:(
168:)
161:·
154:)
116:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.