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 keep. It's clear that this group is notable, thanks to the given sources. (X! · talk)  · @701  ·  15:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Nigras[edit]

Patriotic Nigras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am fixing this broken nomination by Da Killa Wabbit and am not expressing any opinion myself -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet trolls, an offshoot of the GNAA and 4chan. They exist strictly to troll SL and other venues, in addition to a passing notability outside of SL. This article seems to serve primarily to glorify them. It's been speedily deleted twice already, this version looks as if it's sourced but the sourced are not substantially about this group, just about the phenomenon of people getting their kicks by disrupting gameplay, with one or two namechecks as examples of a griefer group. A redirect might be appropriate, but this group appears to me to fail any independent measure of notability by a fair margin. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete A troll group with passing notability at best. This article is about as non-encyclopedia material as you can get. Article violates WP:DENY. The GNAA article was deleted several years ago and the ANUS article is gone, why allow this troll group an article when it just serves to fuel their fire. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to pirate memory games as pointless trollcruft. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the last two afds. It has sources which cover the subject in sufficient detail. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop bolding the 'keep' above. If I wanted to bold it, I would. Protonk (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and get rid of all links to here. 'uSgheb (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Although the group has good entertainment value, it is not an encyclopedia article per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not. Smoking Pole (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per the two previous AfD, and as mentioned in the original AfD the group meets WP:RS and therefore WP:N. --Bannable (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The AfD in question seems to be personal vendetta of Da Killa Wabbit, article also fails to meet WP:DENY as it has no relation to the trolling of wikipedia, nor vandalism. SirLordChikkinz (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — SirLordChikkinz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Keep - As I've stated previously, I don't like this group, but there is plenty of references establishing their notability in the article. The nominator rational appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Looked at previous AfD Nominations. This article is even less Wikipedia material now than it was then. 'orghenya'ngan (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC) — 'orghenya'ngan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Very Strong Delete - Why is there even a question? This belongs on something like Encyclopedia Dramatica not Wikipedia. Black Rabite (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what rational are you suggesting your very strong delete under? There is a question, as has been show in 2 previous AfDs. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple, name one other griefer group that has a Wikipedia entry. I'll admit the group meets WP:RS, but in my view it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a tough enough time making itself viewed as reliable without chaff like this giving Wikipedia critics ammunition. Black Rabite (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - So, your only rational is WP:IDONTLIKEIT ? I don't like it either, but this is a group that has been interviewed and has had articles specifically published about them - I would love to find a policy indicating the article should be blown away, but there simply isn't one. Your rational for deletion isn't exactly helping point me to one, either. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note User:Black Rabite has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and votestacking. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Businesses and organizations in Second Life - Previous AfD nominations in consideration made me think twice, but in the end, I feel WP:DENY applies. 'orghenya' (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC) — 'orghenya' (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • • Question - I read over WP:DENY, and it appears to vandalism on Wikipedia itself. How does this apply to an article about people who are recognized in the news as such? Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Because I looked up the group on sites such as ED, as well as their forums, this group isn't only a SL griefer group. They have links to well known Wiki vandals. A similarity could be drawn between Hezbollah and Al'Qaida. Both are terror groups, but have different targets that sometimes come into sync. Not to mention that WP:DENY has been used to apply to non-Wikipedia trolls in the past, but to any troll. 'orghenya' (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question - What links are you talking about? The vague connection to 4chan? As far as I know the group has no history of involving itself with vandalism of wikipedia. --Bannable (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Simple, according to their own words they are the same group of individuals behind the '/b/lockade' phenomenon around Habbo Hotel, Grawp vandalism, and encouragement of Willy on Wheels. 'orghenya' (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        • Comment - I assume you are saying that because they have an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica and the vandals you mentioned have an article on the same site, that they are somehow involved with each other. I don't see the connection but if you have one, please contribute it to the discussion. -- LordZimmer (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - your responses seem to indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SirLordChikkinz (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Actually no, it is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it is a matter of enforcement of standards. I personally think this particular group is funny and entertaining, but does not warrant a Wikipedia article per WP:DENY. However, after further review and thought, I would be for the groups inclusion in Businesses and organizations in Second Life. Many of the groups in this particular article have much more notability than this group and do not have their own articles. Note I changed my vote to reflect. 'orghenya' (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - The only other question I have is how would this fit into WP:DENY? As there is no history, nor evidence of this group trolling or vandalising wikipedia. SirLordChikkinz; (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since there are a lot of new accounts on here, I would just like to remind you, if you have not already seen it, of WP:VOTE. An AfD is not a vote about whether or not the article should or should not be deleted, this is a discussion of whether or not the article follows the guidelines of inclusion. Please keep this in mind as you debate. -- LordZimmer (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC) — LordZimmer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete -Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not 'IrneHnal (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) — 'IrneHnal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Just like Wikipedia doesn't need an article about GNAA, it doesn't need one about this "organization". Delete as a non-notable group of troublemakers. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Well.... the article does have sources, and they actually talk of PN as a notable griefing group, concretely Wired[1] and Mac News[2], New Scientist[3], and Italian La Stampa[4] and I haven't checked the video of that conference, or that offline New Scientist article. One of the Wired articles[5] does not mention PN directly, but they are talking about the same incident as the other sources by the description and because they even use the same image as La Stampa.

  Notice that WP:DENY is about vandals that damage wikipedia, not about articles that deal with vandalic organizations. For this article we should use WP:ORG because it's an organization WP:CLUB since it's a non-commercial organization. The activities of PN have been reported by third-party, independient, reliable sources, so it passes that guideline.

  To closing admin, please remember to apply rough consensus instead of head counting. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments by CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user have been struck out. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep – notability is easily established via the given sources. This was also made clear in the last two AFDs. MuZemike 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question --- what's going on with all the strikethoughs? Are they all comments of a puppeteer? If so, please can you post a link to the outcome of the investigation into the puppetmaster? Thanks. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can't believe the kinds of stupid crap that is considered notable these days. A group of Second Life griefer bullies? People whose only goal in life is to screw up an online video game? That said IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete and the multiple reliable sources provided satisfies the notability policy... sadly. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this dreadful trollcruft. Notability is established by the sources. Crafty (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is clearly established by the reliable sources. And lets hope that this doesn't get up to 18 noms. Triplestop x3 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is the third time Patriotic Nigras has been nominated for deletion, and both of the previous times it was nearly unanimously decided keep by any sane-minded individuals whose comments weren't screaming "IDONTLIKEIT". I don't feel that much more needs to be said regarding this matter, though the article could use some work. ChurroMonster (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Speedy Keep) - I'd also like to point out that there is are currently only ONE TWO delete votes that was not put forth by a sock puppet of the now-banned user who originally proposed that this article be deleted. That pretty much sums up the fact that this AfD is a definite case of vandalism, and so I am requesting a Speedy Keep.ChurroMonster (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (edited because I didn't see User:Mike Rosoft's delete vote in the middle of his sentence) ChurroMonster (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No new reasons since the last two times. But yet on Wikipedia people can just keep nominating the same article for deletion until it finally gets deleted. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The first two AfDs established notability and not enough has changed since then that would suggest that notability no longer exists. Captain panda 21:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.