Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus. Any way you sort the arguments, there is no consensus to keep or delete here. --Coredesat 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.N.U.S.[edit]

Was voted for deletion before, vanity page, is now back inexplicably 142.167.95.132 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original AFD here Yomanganitalk 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The page is totally different than the old page and meets wikipedia policy guidelines for NPOV and notability a lot better than the old debate. --TrollHistorian 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made the 2nd ANUS page on wikipedia because I was pretty irritated that I had to read through a bunch of anus materials to determine what they really were. I actually visited Wikipedia immediately after I saw the first page so that I could hopefully get an objective view of what ANUS was. Unfortunately the page wasn't there and I was forced to read through some really awful articles on their webpage. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy as re-creation. Same reasons as before, Wp:WEB, reliable sources, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a totally different article than before. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation. As before. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old article can be found here (http://www.anus.com/etc/wikipedia/), the new article is not a re-creation. The GNAA have their own page and frankly ANUS has been more active than the GNAA as of late. Not surprisingly they are the 2nd google hit for the query "anus" --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it fails WP:WEB and WP:V. I never saw the old article, but if it can be speedied, all the better. GassyGuy 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:V? --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is ANUS itself - not a third party. The second is GNAA - not reliable. The third documents its Alexa ranking, which only verifies that the website exists but not much else. The fourth is a directory which, reliable or not, would again only verify that the site exists. The fifth is the site itself. That leaves a lack of reliable third party sources establishing anything notable or verifying most of the content within the article. GassyGuy 07:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article now. It is pretty verifiable and there are many external sites mentioning ANUS pranks. --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable references. Not getting into the speedy / recreation debate, but it has been deleted 16 times... thats a protection candidate. Deizio talk 10:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to delete it! Or is there:— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.184.167.12 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, total lack of WP:RS for this group of trolls and their activities. Sandstein 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were new links added from multiple sources other than "trolls" why do they not fit in with WP:RS? --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please show how the article does not meet WP:WEB? --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. hey guys, remember "consensus"? first of all: "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions." 2: "Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!" 3: GassyGuy: There are more resources for "notability" than those listed in the article. I will add to the list. However, how many more do we need? 4: ANUS covers heavy metal extensively. How about you invest some search engine work? See: http://www.google.com/Top/Arts/Music/Styles/R/Rock/Heavy_Metal/ and http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=anus.com&x=0&y=0 (sorry for the long links, but maybe you can excuse them like you will all those pointless votes?) If you want to have the article deleted for obscure reasons, at least be honest and state them. Best Regards, Aor 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a matter of quantity of resources; it's about quality. Again, none of these are reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the site; at best, they establish that it exists, or are from GNAA or the site itself, which obviously don't count since those are not third parties (the article claims that ANUS is affiliated with GNAA). GassyGuy 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added more references. You will find them in the external links section. Best Regards, Aor 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MTV article is close, but alas, it does far more to confirm the notability of Slayer than ANUS. The others, again, while mentioning ANUS, do little but confirm that the website exists. GassyGuy 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to you I think it is more reference than one can expect for a site about heavy metal. If you look at the other sites in the google link I posted above, you will notice that the important ones have Wikipedia entries, too (Encyclopedia Metallum, BNR Metal). Mainstream reference is even rarer for those sites. It is in the nature of a subgenre that is not well presented in mainstream publications, but this alone doesn't make ANUS non-notable. Best Regards, Aor 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the references can do is confirm that the site exists, then it leaves little too no verifiable content about the website for the article. Per WP:V, you cannot have articles without verifiable content. Per WP:OR, you cannot just use the site itself to write about it. If heavy metal websites do not get mainstream coverage, then they shouldn't get Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it documents things which meet the guidelines; it does not need to acknowledge the presence of everything under the sun, and especially not everything on the Internet. GassyGuy 07:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a problem in your skewed standards. Those other sites are not nominated for deletion, because they don't offend as ANUS does. Although there are clearly more external references for ANUS than for, say, Enclopdia Metallum, ANUS is nominated for deletion. In consequence it appears that this article is focused on and nominated for deletion because of its content, and not because of notability issues. I myself leave the ANUS doctrine aside, judge by the various references on the article page alone and come to the conclusion that ANUS is noteworthy. n.b. I don't call for the deletion of other heavy metal articles, this is just to show the hypocrisy of this debate. Best Regards, Aor 11:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If what you say is true, then I would likely express a similar opinion at an AfD for Encyclopedia Metallum. I have not had a chance to look at that article. However, your argument is specious. I have told you what my problem with the ANUS article are. Others cite similar claims. It is really a matter of addressing them. If other websites have similar problems meeting WP:V, they should be nom'ed for deletion, but the existence of other articles that should be deleted is not a reason to keep this one. GassyGuy 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of what use are guidelines that are enforced only, or more strictly, on articles with offending/dissident content? That is not in any way an encyclopedic approach, and I can only reiterate my conclusion which springs from such behaviour: that something else than the denied encyclopedic adequacy of the topic motivates those who nominate the article for deletion. As a result, articles like ANUS get singled out while others, which, by your standards should have long been deleted (if you abode by those standards), remain. In the end, this hilarious debate is pointless. Those who want the article removed because they have personal objections, which of course aren't sufficient reason for deletion, are not honest and do not aim for consensus. Best Regards, Aor 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, any argument based upon some supposed equality between ANUS and Encyclopedia Metallum is flawed right from the start. ANUS has a current Alexa rank of 66,041, while EM's is only 4,781... more than ten times better than ANUS. (Yes, I know Alexa isn't everything, but it's the quickest way to compare two websites, and these two aren't even in the same ballpark). Believe it or not, this is an argument we've heard countless times before, in misguided support of everything from high-school athletes to video game ROM hacks to people's pet cats. In fact, we hear it so much that there's even a couple of essays written specifically as a rebuttal to this argument. See WP:INN and WP:ILIKEIT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare the Alexa ratings of ANUS to that of the GNAA. GNAA has 307,527, while ANUS has 68,721. Popular media outlets have covered ANUS's exploits. Even admins like JoshuaZ agree this article meets WP:WEB. Also, this article is not the same article that was deleted long ago. You are welcome to compare articles (I provided links at the top). --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do remember consensus. We remember consensus to delete this article the first time, and we remember consensus to keep it deleted in at least two DRV votes. What we don't remember is consensus to create it again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument could be used against you: Maybe its notability is what motivates contributors to re-recrate over and over again. Aor 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone can procure some reliable, third-party sources, I'll vote for keep on this one, because of its amount of ghits (9,990 for the entire name) and its alexa ranking of 66,041 (with around 30,000,000 hits per day). If reliable, third-party sources can't be found, then I vote for a delete and protect from recreation. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even more "ghits"(11,700 for the entire name) return for: "Dark Legions Archive". Aor 07:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These people are obviously fascistic nazis neo-pagan types, and society is falling enough down the drain due to right-wingers. I know wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place that advances a point of view, but for the sake of minorities, let's not let these people have a platform to stand on. Isn't that what democracy is about -- letting everybody have a say? These people wouldn't let minorities have a say. These people would censor wikipedia in the unmitigating pursuit to destroy freedom and coerce people into thinking their way. With that, my vote is a sound delete. --Iconoclast 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do the above correctly? I'm a black man, you see. A gay one, at that. I don't want to be disenfranchised. --Iconoclast 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here want to play Dungeons and Dragons: E-Bureaucrat adventure? 3.5 edition rules. --Iconoclast 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A legitament organization, trolls or not--ABigBlackMan 14:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name entices me. Wanna chat? --Iconoclast 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Mentions in mainstream news and such easily meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and redirect to anus. Anomo 03:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many articles remain from groups like SomethingAwful for Memes that are obscure/specific to them. ANUS arguably, especially in the black metal world, has some relevance and lots of history behind it. This article had clarified to me what ANUS was when I heard a casual mention of them on IRC a while back. There's no need for it to fall to people who want to delete it for personal reasons. ContivityGoddess
  • Failing WP:V is hardly a personal reason. GassyGuy 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people have shown it doesn't, and there are many, many notable links on the article's page. I suggest you check out the page and actually read it. ContivityGoddess 20:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already commented above on why the references on the page do not count as WP:RS and find it insulting that you think I would comment before reading the article. Please reread WP:AGF. GassyGuy 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed since the initial AFD. I've asked you if you have read the new article and looked at the new links but you haven't responded to my questions. --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I already covered the revised article when I had my discussion with Aor... GassyGuy 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do the following links fail WP:RS [1] [2] [3]? They are all mainstream media and the Houston Press article covers what the group ANUS is. I read WP:RS and the 3 links I gave examples are reliable secondary sources. Even the non-english one is considered legitimate by WP:RS. --TrollHistorian 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Clarin article doesn't say anything about ANUS except confirmation that it exists and is somehow associated with metal - that's not non-trivial coverage. The Launch one is also not non-trivial; it's more about the Slayer incident than ANUS, who is simply mentioned in passing as being associated with it. The Houston one is the strongest of the three, but it's not being featured in a real article, it's part of a "best of" special feature. That's borderline; it may or may not count as non-trivial coverage by a reliable source, but I hardly see that as strong evidence of notability any more than a paragraph in any other special interest (e.g., the tech section) area of a paper would qualify most sites. GassyGuy 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It seems that the sickeningly egalitarian rules on this let's-pretend 'encyclopedia' deem it permissible to have articles like "List of props appearing in episode 432 of The Simpsons" but regard articles about subcultural phenomena, especially when the philosophies espoused by such subcultures go against the grain of placid Hindu-cattle conformity which this 'encyclopedia' promotes, to be a waste of precious server space. The irony of this is that the fool who nominated this article for deletion clearly doesn't even understand the first thing about what he read in the article. He claims that this is vanity. The thing is, Yomangani, vanity is a distinctly un-nihilistic trait. There is no reason for a nihilist to be vain, because it is placing value upon something that is transitory and fleeting. It seems to be thing at Wikipedia, though, that ignorance, political correctness, pseudoscientific twaffle and Judeo-Christian moral systems are regarded as sacrosanct, while logic, beauty and intellectualism are condemned as not being important enough for inclusion.

Iconoclast, so anything can be included in this pretty 'encyclopedia' except for 'fascistic neopagan ideology'? Let me tell you something, fool. Nihilism implies atheism, not neopaganism. Neopaganism is a pointless romantic revisionist historical creation which, while having aesthetic appeal to some, is far removed from any critically tenable conception of the world. You're ignorant, Iconoclast, but we agree on one thing. The world is indeed deteriorating. But the world is not deteriorating because of black metal. It is deteriorating because people are terrified of the truth, and would rather exist in a novocainesque facade of shopping malls, designer clothing, plastic music and trendy stupidity. The fact that there are some people who would rather have no part of that existence is mortally offensive to these herd-grazers, and that is why they want to delete this article. But this 'encyclopedia' is also helping the world to destroy itself. Knowledge is not for everyone. It is not democratic. Knowledge is an aristocracy. A fool cannot savour the existential fullness granted by reading the works of Nietzsche, or playing with the abstractions of higher mathematics. They content themselves here by editing articles on the local highway and their favourite television show. Pseudoscience is promoted here at the same level as real science. Religion is privileged above art.

That being said, there is no real reason why this article should be here. Its presence merely indicates perceived importance on the part of those who are not fit to judge. Nonetheless, it would illustrate just how fucking hypocritical the ostensive egalitarian nature of this 'encyclopedia' is, if the article were to be deleted. Any ideology has to censor that which poses a threat to itself. And while I do not delude myself into thinking that the ideology of black metal poses any real threat to the nauseating stupor of left-liberalism at the moment, its time will come. The reaction, though, of people to intellectualism and anti-egalitarianism is an inbuilt and natural extension of the left-liberal mindset, because ultimately this is what poses the biggest threat to the 'utopia' in which we live. So, if the people at Wikipedia are to truly practice the revolting morality which they preach, they will keep this article, not because they agree with it, or because it is in accord with whatever insane so-called 'rules' there are here. They will keep this article to avoid making bigger prats of themselves than they already are.

Now have fun, everybody, finding your 'consensus'. But know that consensus among fools will represent only foolishness. You make me laugh. --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm not going to read all that (I do not want to get a heart attack as a black man such as myself has heart disease), but what it boils down to is whether or not it is good for minorities. ANUS isn't good for minorities -- it is actively racist and anti-Jew (the worst of the worst as anti-Semitism has always been the highest evil) and supports neo-nazi skinhead music like Skrewdriver, Burzu, Graveland, Bully Boys, and so on. I think that what it boils down to is not whether it is notable or not, but whether or not it should be notable. Get it? Get it? --Iconoclast 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree, although it's not very often I get to agree with a gay gentleman of colour (with heart disease)...you're being very subtle. Although what's also subtle is how I could change my vote from 'keep' to 'delete' but it still makes sense. I think that should tell everybody something, but I shan't bother explaining what ;[ --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A.N.U.S is an absolutely superb resource for numerous musical genres and subcultures. It is particularly insightful and well written. Indeed as someone who specialised in music youth and subculture as part of thier political studies I can only but wonder why this sight has been deemed inapproprate for this site. I would go so far as to argue that its relevance is particulalry pertinent due to the sure number of related pages of this nature concerning music in the metal scene. Many of those above that have nominated this page for deletion furthermore seem totally unfamiliar with the topic at hand and its deeper meaning and consequence for those who live this style of life and make it thier approach and philosophy. I think it would be sad to delete this page and if this is then the case it is only further indication of the increasingly deteriating quality of wikipedia as a whole. Spectral Delight 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This site should not be deleted as it supports metal. It is a cool source of info on bands and stuff and has some interesting ideas on why bands play the way they do etc...

Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall. The Crying Orc 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is death for true metal, fool. Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect from recreation. Non-notable and of course having an article on Wikipedia is a troll itself, and there's no reason to give them any satisfaction. Recury 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy against describing groups which Wikipedians might not like? --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, troll! How's the trolling? Not too obvious, I hope. Recury 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TrollHistorian is not a troll. What we see here, though, is the act of accusing someone of being a troll so you can rhetorically deny the value of his contribution to the discussion (Fallacy). Also, the ANUS article is not a troll. Best Regards, Aor 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles for similar organizations on Wikipedia, such as the Gay Nigger Association of America and the Cult of the Dead Cow. The former has withstood votes for deletion several times, and the latter does not appear to be controversial. Thus I think American Nihilist Underground Society is also a legitimate article for a notable organization. --Afed 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anus is definitely more notable than the GNAA or even the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, and both articles have survived deletion votes before. Anus has been around longer (since the BBS era), operates several websites (Anus.com, Corrupt.org, Sodomy.org and many more) and has been more active recently than GNAA, "trolling" both the cyberspace and meatspace (through flyering). Besides, Anus is much more than a simple trolling organisation, it advocates a philosophy and a lifestyle, and has articles that inform a certain subcuture (Death Metal / Nihilist culture) I can't see why it is less notable than Wipipedia which serves approximately the same purpose for the BDSM subculture. In fact, it can be said that the articles on Anus.com constitute social commentary that qualifies it on the same level of notability as Lew Rockwell.com and various other social commentary websites.

  • Keep, unfortunately. These people have been at it for many years and are better-known than 3/4 of the so-called "internet memes" that get Wikipedia coverage. They get 10,100 Google hits at this moment, even after removing Wikipedia-referential sites. wikipediatrix 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for deletion by anonymous SPAs should be disreguarded. This does not seem to be someone with a legitimate interest in improving Wikipedia. --Afed 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't see evidence of an encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why Wikipedia has policies like WP:WEB which is ANUS definately meets via mainstream media mentions.--TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The following links (listed under external links in the article) show satisfy WP:V and WP:WEB [4] [5] [6] [7]. JoshuaZ 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As many have shown above, there are at least as valid reasons for the present article as for a rather large percentage of Wikipedia articles. Apparently, people who do not understand a topic that deviates from what they are used to, try out scrutinizing to a level never used for more mainstream topics. — SomeHuman 18 Oct2006 23:44 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. ANUS is a useful source for Nihilism and one of the most well-known sources for underground metal. The site itself has caused quite a bit of controversy, and for this reason and the many other reasons mentioned above is a noticeable internet topic that fits the nature of this encyclopedia. Macellarius 02:35, 19 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Nihilist_Underground_Society_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142167445"