Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Speedy keep. IAR and SNOW invoked, clearly. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous (group)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (2nd nomination)
Anonymous (group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The article on Anonymous was created to help explain the concept of Anonymous because of the attention drawn by Project Chanology. 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:

  1. That the media presented is not properly reflective of the nature of the "group" and have blatant inaccuracies
  2. That the article, while locked from anonymous editors, silences the opinions of the majority of the subject
  3. That because the inaccurate articles are the only ones that meet WP:V, the article is not neutral.
  4. That WP:IGNORE is being stifled causing the above problems to be unresolvable

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. Kakama (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep This user clearly seems to have an agenda to get the page deleted because he or she doesn't like it. 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball speedy keep bad faith nomination IMHO, notability established through citations Fosnez (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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... Kakama (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Not only does this seem to be a bad faith nomination, but the subject is obviously notable given the recent events with Scientology, which there have been more than one of, thus passing ONEEVENT and !news. While it's true that Wikipedia's portrayl of anon isn't entirely accurate, that is because the media coverage isn't entirely accuarate, and Wikipedia 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 that under the current policies and guidelines. Furthermore, KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is bad, and IAR, which is really all that is left of your nomination, in and of itself doesn't make a good argument, especially with the IDONTLIKEIT tone. Celarnor Talk to me 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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. Kakama (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not delete articles based on the content of the article (Read WP:DP for details). Wikipedia 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, 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 Wikipedia 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. Celarnor Talk to me 05:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Sorry guys, but you haven't really presented a valid deletion argument here. Maxamegalon2000 05:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep 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 is an argument for another place and time. Z00r (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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 report. But the deletion of the article isn't the answer. Hopefully, over time, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines revolving around primary sources will evolve into something that encompasses both truth and verifability rather than just verifiability. In any case, that's something for the pump. Celarnor Talk to me 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete 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 Bomblol (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — Bomblol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Thank you for noticing such a relevant issue Bomblol (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Three words: Single purpose account. 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 "Wikipedia" thing is open to the public. PretentiousNameHere (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


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.