Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (4th 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 keep. MBisanz talk 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patriotic Nigras[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Patriotic Nigras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]According to Section A7 Of the Criteria for Speedy deletion an article that is about "a real person, individual animal(s), organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. I cannot see how a group of internet trolls is a significant group of people that has any difference to anyone apart from those they disrupt online. This group conducts itself in many cases illegally however has had no major or notable effect on any online community otherwise it would have become duly noted by such organisations they conduct against. For example the group Anonymous I would consider to be worthy and within the guidelines of Section A7 as it has had a noticeable effect on a group or organisation that has expressed in media and relevant formats this, however is not reflected by this group. In comparison the "Patriotic Nigras" is a small, attention seeking group of people who are getting just that from an unnecessary article. comment added by olowe2011 (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2012
- Thanks for the help, I finally worked out where to put this. Getting around wikipedia is hard without fellow editors to help thank you very much and if you with you further contribute with a view on the removal of this article please feel free. Olowe2011 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Any internet troll can get media coverage, that doesn't mean they are actually notable. Remember, the notability guidelines are just that—guidelines. In this case, I don't think the group has actually had enough of a cultural or historic impact to warrant a Wikipedia article. Kaldari (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let it be... let it be. You can't erase history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.132.81 (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 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 fourth AfD. The majority of the sources are not reliable and some are self-published. While I admire the attempt to document and memorialize this piece of Internet culture, now is not the time or place. czar · · 21:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What I found: Significant coverage: New Scientist September 1, 2007. Less than significant coverage: The Telegraph March 15, 2007, New Scientist September 1, 2007, Guardian.co.uk June 23, 2011. The article has additional source so that together the topic meets WP:GNG. The close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (3rd nomination) by NAC User:X! (last edit 8 October 2012)[1] was: "The result was keep. It's clear that this group is notable, thanks to the given sources." The first three AfDs established the topic meet WP:GNG and not enough has changed since then that would suggest that the topic no longer meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As Kaldari correctly mentioned above any troll group can gain media coverage and self-publish articles and site them as sources. However, the key to this debate is the simple question to how much impact this group have on internet culture. When I read this article it seemed more of a publishing of feats and a description of an organisation rather than an educational resource. As czar also correctly mentioned above it reads like a rap sheet and correctly mentioned WP:NPOV. --Olowe2011 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Is the nominator reading the same policies I am? This is sounding like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article is well sourced with mainstream links. This is not a general run of the mill group of kids, but a group that caught international interest with some of their exploits. Article is well sourced. I am failing to see what policy is being violated here. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm still undecided, but I'd like to point out that many of the sources only trivially address PN in particular. Macnewsworld only mentions it in passing once. Metro doesn't mention them at all. Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I also DONTLIKEIT, but it does seem to be notable insofar as the current refs show coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Significant coverage is borderline but I'll err on the side of the three previous AfD outcomes. -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Metro as pointed out does not even mention Patriotic Nigras therefore is an irrelevant source. In response to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim It has nothing to do with personal dislike however, the article has irrelevant sources and does not really point out a notable cause or reason. As an encyclopedia it's worth pointing out that large groups based on single-virtual worlds are not added to Wikipedia because if that was the case we would have pages about World of Warcraft guilds and of the type. As stated before, is it worth asking yourself does the group have a viable and verifiable cultural impact. --Olowe2011 (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it unreliable. At best it makes it irrelevant. -Thibbs (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any article relies on good sourcing, the sourcing is irrelevant yes. --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that single source may be irrelevant (to the question of the group's notability), but the other 5 or 6 RSes clearly aren't irrelevant. Honestly I think your best argument is that the coverage is not significant enough to show notability. The reliability of the multiple RSes isn't an issue here. Neither is the irrelevance of a single source. -Thibbs (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As another editor correctly pointed out above any trolling group can gain news coverage. Also I would like to point out that self written articles on other websites do not count as reliable sources. If you actually read the multiple RSes you might see that they do not point towards Patriotic Nigras as a group but highlight an act of disruptive behaviors in which basically having this article stands to be a sign to we did it however this doesn't fit under encyclopedic content. Regardless of this articles limited sources my point regarding if any popular online group could have a wikipedia article then we would see a lot of articles for large groups based within games. There is another article for a popular internet troll group called Anonymous which is clearly a notable article for it shows many sources, gives an overall and non rap sheet like material and describes numerous well known problems caused by the group in which had a major consequence for both government organisations ect. If you or the article contributor can actually come up with a reason people would like to be educated on this group or name an event in which this group have played a major cultural role then I might change my views on this however as for now I am against articles that have no significant impact on culture or anyone in general (for the sense of the word.) --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognize that you feel strongly about the issue, but as I said, the reliability of the multiple RSes present here is not an issue (we have GLS Conference, New Scientist x2, Wired x2 - these are all clearly reliable and they do cover the topic) and I think it actually harms your credibility to point to the one source that doesn't mention the group by name (and is intended to source a tangential issue in the article) and broadly proclaim that all of the sources are irrelevant because they fail to mention the topic. If you think that the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability then that alone may be a good reason to nominate for deletion, but the fact that the article's topic covers a troll group and that it highlights disruptive behavior, or the fact that any trolling group can gain news coverage isn't sufficient evidence on its own that the topic is nonencyclopedic. In fact the bit about news coverage sounds like an argument that it's likely to be encyclopedic by Wikipedia's standards. As others have brought up above, these kinds of arguments amount to nothing more than the familiar cry of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keep your argument simple and policy-based. Insignificant coverage is potentially a fine argument on its own. No need to come up with reasons why the reliably-sourced content couldn't possibly be of interest to anybody. That's just asking to be refuted by someone else's personal experiences and an equally silly claim of WP:ILIKEIT. -Thibbs (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As another editor correctly pointed out above any trolling group can gain news coverage. Also I would like to point out that self written articles on other websites do not count as reliable sources. If you actually read the multiple RSes you might see that they do not point towards Patriotic Nigras as a group but highlight an act of disruptive behaviors in which basically having this article stands to be a sign to we did it however this doesn't fit under encyclopedic content. Regardless of this articles limited sources my point regarding if any popular online group could have a wikipedia article then we would see a lot of articles for large groups based within games. There is another article for a popular internet troll group called Anonymous which is clearly a notable article for it shows many sources, gives an overall and non rap sheet like material and describes numerous well known problems caused by the group in which had a major consequence for both government organisations ect. If you or the article contributor can actually come up with a reason people would like to be educated on this group or name an event in which this group have played a major cultural role then I might change my views on this however as for now I am against articles that have no significant impact on culture or anyone in general (for the sense of the word.) --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that single source may be irrelevant (to the question of the group's notability), but the other 5 or 6 RSes clearly aren't irrelevant. Honestly I think your best argument is that the coverage is not significant enough to show notability. The reliability of the multiple RSes isn't an issue here. Neither is the irrelevance of a single source. -Thibbs (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any article relies on good sourcing, the sourcing is irrelevant yes. --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it unreliable. At best it makes it irrelevant. -Thibbs (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are other RSes that cover this topic as well that aren't presented in the article or the foregoing discussion. There are a few pages that cover the group in Steven Johnson's The Best Technology Writing 2009 (Yale University Press, 2009; ISBN 9780300154108), and 16 more refs (mostly academic papers on internet culture) appear in Google Scholar. Boing Boing calls the group "an early iteration of Anonymous" so perhaps the argument could be made to merge, but deletion seems to be unnecessary and the fact of the matter is that the nomination rationale above is malformed and appears to be premised on the personal distaste of the nominator regarding the subject. There's no new argument here that wasn't made in the previous 3 noms and since the date that they closed the reliable sourcing has only grown more numerous. The nom points to Anonymous as an example of a very notable troll group, but the GNG makes no difference between very notable and only moderately notable. Clearly the reffing could be improved, but if it's notable then it's notable and deserves an article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What you pointed out are not policies but guidelines therefore I will only quote them if they have relevance. My main point as I stated in my nomination itself in which is above if you care to read it is that the article is not about a notable organisation. Clearly the previous nominations reflect a view point from such other editors and that should be respected. Their presence is verifiable, but not notable by WP:ORG. This is an organisation with no indication of significance or importance. As I said before if you can tell me a time this group has had a cultural impact (and is verifiable) please enlighten me. I would also make clear this is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I have clearly expressed if you can give me some evidence this group is notable then I would change my mind. In summary I believe this article is not about a notable organisation according to the notability guidelines. As a note I am passionate about everything I have my head in. -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claim that IDONTLIKEIT isn't the basis of your argument would have more footing if you didn't use POV terms like "small, attention seeking group of people" and subjective arguments like "I cannot see how a group of internet trolls is a significant group of people" in your deletion rationale. You can be a lot more persuasive by sticking strictly to the guidelines and policies without the colorful language. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've read your speedy delete nomination (wrong procedure for a speedy nom, by the way) and I don't understand your distinction between policy and guideline here. We're taking opposed views of this article's capacity to meet the Notability guideline, right? Does the article also violate one of Wikipedia's policies somehow? As far as notability is concerned, I think you're missing the fact that notability doesn't refer to real-world importance or to personal significance for any individual editor (e.g. Just because Whoopee cushion isn't as important in the real world as World War II doesn't mean it is a non-notable topic). Notability is defined by the presence of multiple reliable 3rd-party sources in which the topic is covered significantly. Again, (a) we have multiple sources, and (b) many of them are reliable. So this leaves you with one argument: that the coverage isn't significant. I think that's a debatable position and I'm inclined to side with the prior consensus considering that as I said the RS coverage of this group has only grown since the last AfD. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As yet to see proof as to why this article is notable and poses a cultural impact to an overall consensus of people. (Just as a note I do not see how a group that effects users on Second Life can be considered an effect on internet culture.) -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:N. Topics covered by multiple reliable sources are presumed to be notable (be the reason cultural impact or anything else). The burden is on you to demonstrate that even though Wired and New Scientist and the GLS conference and Boing Boing and the 16 Google Scholar references and the Yale University Press book and the Telegraph and the Guardian cover the topic it somehow isn't notable. You can't just argue that this is an attention-seeking troll group and leave it at that. You also can't define cultural relevance according to your personal views. And you can't misrepresent the reliability or the relevance of the sources presented. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The sources in which you have given demonstrate my point in lack of notability in the fact they quote one specific event in which occurred on Second Life towards prominent members in which them sources state that this group claims to have perpetrated. Can you explain how a group that are written about in a few news articles for an event they CLAIMED to have purported makes them anymore notable than a family that got into a few local news papers for eating the most hot dogs. Also if you read the article you might agree the majority of the article is actually un-supported by sources for example: "To further their aims on Second Life, the Patriotic Nigras developed a modified Second Life client called ShoopedLife that allowed them to bypass many of the hardware-banning methods typically used by Linden Lab to prevent persistent griefers from accessing Second Life. In July 2008, ShoopedLife was further modified to utilize the Lua code base to automate specific functions of the regular client. In December 2008, the main developer for ShoopedLife, "N3X15," left the Patriotic Nigras, effectively ending development of the client.[4]" is supposed to be supported by reference [4] in which you might notice is a deleted article. Even the first section of the article has only one media-based source as the second GLS Conference source does not link to anything referencing this group. Secondly, the statement made in the article is in no way represented or supported in the one media based source quoted. -Olowe2011Talk
- I think your equation of Wired, New Scientist, etc. to "a few local news papers" is a false one. Also I did read the article and I noted above that it needs improvement. That's not the same thing as saying it needs deletion. The article connected to the broken link you discovered can be found here, but it's irrelevant to a discussion of notability since it's an SPS and nobody is basing their keep !vote on that source. The first section is covered by Wired and New Scientist as well as GLS Conference which does in fact does cover the group for about 5 minutes starting at 14:30 in their presentation. The reffing isn't very thorough and certainly more refs could be added, so if this was an Articles for Improvement discussion then I'd agree 100%, but as an Articles for Deletion discussion I think it goes too far. -Thibbs (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article you linked me to was written by a member of this group and also is hosted on a self created article where the author has no credibility. And my recommendation for deletion is based on the fact the majority of the article is not relevantly sourced (state totally different things to what are actually written in the articles.) And as said before holds no evidence of notability to an overall consensus of people. -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article I linked you was the one you claimed had been deleted. As I suggested, it's an SPS and is appropriate for the article although it can't itself demonstrate notability (read WP:SELFPUB to understand why the author does have credibility). The article needs to be improved. That much is clear. It's certainly not clear that the "overall consensus of people" concludes that the multiple RSes aren't capable of demonstrating notability. If the topic has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources then it's a notable topic regardless of the current state of the article. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. -Thibbs (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article you linked me to was written by a member of this group and also is hosted on a self created article where the author has no credibility. And my recommendation for deletion is based on the fact the majority of the article is not relevantly sourced (state totally different things to what are actually written in the articles.) And as said before holds no evidence of notability to an overall consensus of people. -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your equation of Wired, New Scientist, etc. to "a few local news papers" is a false one. Also I did read the article and I noted above that it needs improvement. That's not the same thing as saying it needs deletion. The article connected to the broken link you discovered can be found here, but it's irrelevant to a discussion of notability since it's an SPS and nobody is basing their keep !vote on that source. The first section is covered by Wired and New Scientist as well as GLS Conference which does in fact does cover the group for about 5 minutes starting at 14:30 in their presentation. The reffing isn't very thorough and certainly more refs could be added, so if this was an Articles for Improvement discussion then I'd agree 100%, but as an Articles for Deletion discussion I think it goes too far. -Thibbs (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The sources in which you have given demonstrate my point in lack of notability in the fact they quote one specific event in which occurred on Second Life towards prominent members in which them sources state that this group claims to have perpetrated. Can you explain how a group that are written about in a few news articles for an event they CLAIMED to have purported makes them anymore notable than a family that got into a few local news papers for eating the most hot dogs. Also if you read the article you might agree the majority of the article is actually un-supported by sources for example: "To further their aims on Second Life, the Patriotic Nigras developed a modified Second Life client called ShoopedLife that allowed them to bypass many of the hardware-banning methods typically used by Linden Lab to prevent persistent griefers from accessing Second Life. In July 2008, ShoopedLife was further modified to utilize the Lua code base to automate specific functions of the regular client. In December 2008, the main developer for ShoopedLife, "N3X15," left the Patriotic Nigras, effectively ending development of the client.[4]" is supposed to be supported by reference [4] in which you might notice is a deleted article. Even the first section of the article has only one media-based source as the second GLS Conference source does not link to anything referencing this group. Secondly, the statement made in the article is in no way represented or supported in the one media based source quoted. -Olowe2011Talk
- See WP:N. Topics covered by multiple reliable sources are presumed to be notable (be the reason cultural impact or anything else). The burden is on you to demonstrate that even though Wired and New Scientist and the GLS conference and Boing Boing and the 16 Google Scholar references and the Yale University Press book and the Telegraph and the Guardian cover the topic it somehow isn't notable. You can't just argue that this is an attention-seeking troll group and leave it at that. You also can't define cultural relevance according to your personal views. And you can't misrepresent the reliability or the relevance of the sources presented. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As yet to see proof as to why this article is notable and poses a cultural impact to an overall consensus of people. (Just as a note I do not see how a group that effects users on Second Life can be considered an effect on internet culture.) -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've read your speedy delete nomination (wrong procedure for a speedy nom, by the way) and I don't understand your distinction between policy and guideline here. We're taking opposed views of this article's capacity to meet the Notability guideline, right? Does the article also violate one of Wikipedia's policies somehow? As far as notability is concerned, I think you're missing the fact that notability doesn't refer to real-world importance or to personal significance for any individual editor (e.g. Just because Whoopee cushion isn't as important in the real world as World War II doesn't mean it is a non-notable topic). Notability is defined by the presence of multiple reliable 3rd-party sources in which the topic is covered significantly. Again, (a) we have multiple sources, and (b) many of them are reliable. So this leaves you with one argument: that the coverage isn't significant. I think that's a debatable position and I'm inclined to side with the prior consensus considering that as I said the RS coverage of this group has only grown since the last AfD. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I added some of the sources discussed above to the article and rearranged it a bit. I think it is pretty clear it passes GNG. Several of the RSes covered the topic in significant depth. -Thibbs (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well done, The article now appears to have verifiable sourcing (also inc relevant), doesn't appear like a rap sheet and has a natural point of view. I think this change is satisfactory and unexpected. It provided me with more insight into the topic. I still am on the line if a group solely based on disrupting second life is classified as important or significant however in terms of the article content and how it is written I congratulate you. Good work. -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It could still use work of course, but I think the group is mainly important for its capacity to spark commentary by critics and internet culture writers rather than for its actions which are individually pretty juvenile nonsense. I tried to add something to that effect to the article. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well done, The article now appears to have verifiable sourcing (also inc relevant), doesn't appear like a rap sheet and has a natural point of view. I think this change is satisfactory and unexpected. It provided me with more insight into the topic. I still am on the line if a group solely based on disrupting second life is classified as important or significant however in terms of the article content and how it is written I congratulate you. Good work. -Olowe2011Talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 28 October 2012 (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.