Talk:American Nihilist Underground Society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
Contents |
[edit] Sabotage Attempts
"I have an idea, that might actually be funny unlike the lame troll in the first post. Let's create a Vote for Deletion for the ANUS article on wikipedia, and flood it with votes (for Delete, obviously) from users from this site (www.metal-archives.com)." -- [1]
It links to the fourth nomination for deletion. Interestingly, ANUS has never engaged in Wikibombing but it seems our enemies have.Wikipedometer
- Jesus_Wept is a damned fool of a man and always shows it. I've been hoping he'd get banned from there for a few months, he does nothing but pollute it (and now apparently this site as well). Ours18 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Press Mention
ANUS is divided into several divisions, and one of its oldest is the metal division (comprised of anus.com/metal and www.hessian.org and www.deathmetal.org). It just got mentioned in the [2] article on Adam Gadahn. Wikipedometer 16:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dualism
It seems to me, that ANUS's stance on dualism is rather complicated, but to say they support it doesn't seem to be fully truthful. Visit these links: http://www.anus.com/zine/db/dualism/index.html. http://www.anus.com/zine/exponentiation/issue1/features. See "What Dualism?". Clearly it is not as simple as "promoting dualism", since they are obviously against supernatural, Judeo/Christian forms of Dualism. JunblaA 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article may be a tad disingenuous to environmentalists and stoners by listing them with nazis and trolls. ReverendG 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The environmentalist-stoner link is well established. The question is how truthful the damn thing is, not whether it offends some idiot wearing birkenstocks. Wikipedometer 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's disingenuous or not, it's a fact that there are a great many environmentalists and stoners in this organization, so they should be listed as members.
Wouldn't 'eco-fascist' be a more accurate label than 'environmentalist'?.And I am not quite sure about how to discern whether somebody is a stoner online.
[edit] References
I see the main issue with this article on Wikipedia is notability so one should leave the references in there and add more if anyone finds any. ANUS seems to be an interesting group, I've seen their trolls in Michelle Malkin's trackback and various conservative blogs. --TrollHistorian 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- More than likely you've seen many other ANUS trolls and didn't know they were ANUS-related :). However,ANUS has never agreed with sentiment on ethnic genocide and it isn't even wanting to genocide against Christianity, just Judeo-Christians and even that is tounge-in-cheek. The hate index site doesn't need to be mentioned, does it? It is just some idiot with a website calling ANUS a hate site because ANUS isn't liberal. On second thoughts, The Hate Directory is kind of an amusing glance at the lonely life of a man who has nothing better to do than to find websites and leabel them hate, so I think it should be mentioned. --24.252.38.144 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The criticisms are weak but they show ANUS exists. I think blogs which whined about the Michelle Malkin trackback spamming might be more relevant but you must maintain POV and WP:WEB --TrollHistorian 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think this article needs to be place on need of improvement because it is written in the same style as anus.com, and the only people who seem to contribute to it are the people who run anus.com.
- I agree. --TrollHistorian 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the style? It's articulate and not informal. Leave it alone. The only problem I see with the article is the inclusion of the iBong interview - I think it should be removed due to irrelevance. The site isn't even mentioned.
- Forgot to sign in above --ChristineDelusion 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the style? It's articulate and not informal. Leave it alone. The only problem I see with the article is the inclusion of the iBong interview - I think it should be removed due to irrelevance. The site isn't even mentioned.
- I agree. --TrollHistorian 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think this article needs to be place on need of improvement because it is written in the same style as anus.com, and the only people who seem to contribute to it are the people who run anus.com.
- The criticisms are weak but they show ANUS exists. I think blogs which whined about the Michelle Malkin trackback spamming might be more relevant but you must maintain POV and WP:WEB --TrollHistorian 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why the hell are so many references needed? There is less text than references!!!
- The references are neccessary; a 'lack of references' has repeatedly been used as an argument for deletion. Aor 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion?
This page should be deleted because ANUS is not notable. The article makes it out to be some large underground organization with a long history but in reality it consists of one nerd putting his musings up on the internet and more recently a host of barely-affiliated forum-goers. At most two individuals are heavily involved in maintenance of the largely unnotable ANUS page, which is really the only manifestation of ANUS; as a website. The only difference between ANUS.com and a Livejournal is the domain name.
- Factual inaccurate, and it's already been nominated for deletion before. And been deleted before...and allowed back on. If you are just going to use the same rhetoric those in the past have used to get ti deleted, I don't think you are going to get anything done. Ours18 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I say delete it. --Kingkingkingking 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It is not notable.
About Google hits- ANUS related trolls are spamming several forums, often just to provide articles from ANUS, but also in some cases provoking people (TROLLING) and this affects the hits in Google as well. This small group is trying to generate sense of influence and importance for ANUS by such actions. [3]
If ANUS would truly grow, it's a diffrent story. Right now I cant see any reason for to exsist in a encyclopedia. Any site could gain hits temporarily with spamming. But does it make it truly notable? No. Mentioning Google hit amounts for certain site from short timeperiod isn't really a proof of being notable. Leyjaefforson 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it has been continually growing for the last two years; they've set up two new messageboards partially for that reason. The staff has also nearly doubled, if I'm not mistaken. Ours18 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page Rank
I've performed some research on Alexa and I have found the following results. When compared to other metal websites, anus.com does not even come close in terms of ranking. I've decided to perform a little comparison between anus.com and other popular metal websites, and here is what I discovered (source: Alexa)
Remember, the lower the number, the higher that website is ranked, meaning that the website has a greater popularity across the internet.
- Anus.com's alexa rank: 67,696
Compare this with other popular metal websites:
- Metalstorm.ee's alexa rank: 44,619
- Metal-Archives's alexa rank: 4,317
- Thegauntlet.com's alexa rank: 22,454
If anus.com was truly massive as the article claims, then it should of trounced these websites single-handedly. I have even created a graph on alexa showing anus.com's pagerank compared with the pagerank of other metal websites (in this example, I compared anus.com with metalstorm.ee and thegauntlet.com): [4]
With all of these facts in mind, I believe it is fair to say that anus.com is in no way notable whatsoever. --Fatalism, lol 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Notability has already been established. Please read over the AFD. While you are at it compare the Alexa page ranks of GNAA.us versus ANUS.com. Then again relying on spyware as credibly metric is pretty silly. --TrollHistorian 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I read your userpage and you say that you are interested in the history of Internet trolling. If you truly believe this site to be notable, I have no problem with that, but try not to let your interest in the info that it provides cause you to overlook notability concerns, not that that is necessarily the case. Thanks.--Azer Red Si? 23:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stubbed
I've removed material that wasn't supported by reliable sources. There certainly are some reliable sources listed in the "external links" section so if anyone wants to add actual material to the article from these sources and cite them appropiately, that would be great.
brenneman 00:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I think the image could stay, though. Prolog 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reliable sources
I don't believe the overthrow.com article is a reliable source. Article seems to be non-independant—based on a now non-extant page from anus.com itself. Can't find any news source to confirm it, nothing in LexisNexis news archive suggests that anybody offered to sell his bones, let alone was investigated for it. Cool Hand Luke 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Bill White is officially involved with ANUS, so I don't see why the news site wouldn't be independant. Ours18 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- You don't think he's "officially" involved? Who are you anyway? No, I doubt his is either, but the article seems to be based on unverified content from anus.com itself. The article's lighthearted tone suggests that even it takes the claim serious. And, as I said, nothing else seems to support the claim of FBI investigation. Anyhow, I didn't previously understand who Bill White was, but am now certain that the claim fails WP:V&WP:RS for several reasons (extraordinary claim, sourced without corroboration to an extremist group). I'm removing it. Cool Hand Luke 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible Sources - Day of Slayer
National Day of Slayer Creator Speaks - it says Vijay Prozak (not Anus). National Day of Slayer Site Takes Credit for Vandalism - The unidentified author of the National Day of Slayer site expresses excitment for inspiring the desecration of a Catholic seminary in upstate New York. Fake Slayer Website Turns Fans to Vandals Seeing as we already have 2 sources alleging anus behind it and confirmation from National Day of Slayer Creator Speaks that Vijay Prozak is webmaster (and webmaster of anus) is it OR to link these? --TrollHistorian 08:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy Deletion Contested
Survived 1 AFD with an actual KEEP vote already, I don't see how it is a speedy candidate. It meets also the necessary notability standards and it is well sourced. --TrollHistorian 06:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
