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. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Nigras[edit]

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)

It may be noted that I have already nominated this article for deletion in the past. It is important to note that I am not bias for or against this group however as an editor and keen contributor I do feel that this Article in some sense undermines Wikipedia principles. My main reason for nominating this article for deletion is because I sincerely believe that the topic is not notable and does not encompass a wide range of discussion which would interest general readers.

Despite the fact the Patriotic Nigras are mentioned in name by media outlets and some lesser known researchers I do not believe that this alone make a topic or organisation "notable." The page is simply about a group which has been known to "troll" and "grief" on popular social media websites. Their exploits may have drawn public attention and researchers attention however, again this doesn't prove the group is notable.

I argue that this group is simply a small selection of unknown persons who disrupt online virtual worlds, this is something anyone can do and stand together with a so called "group" and claim responsibility. That group may then go onto receiving minor media coverage by local news outlets and then could go onto making a Wikipedia page which in fact further glorifies their actions.

I do not believe Patriotic Nigras serves any academic, research or public interest and therefore an article on Wikipedia is inappropriate. olowe2011 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Strong 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 fifth 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 olowe2011 (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Olowe2011: Per the WP:Guide to deletion: Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations. (emphasis mine) -- In other words, please don't issue another bolded !vote after nominating (you are, of course, welcome to comment along the way, though). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is supported in depth by multiple independent reliable sources. It clearly meets the general notability guidelines. I don't understand the argument that although the group has drawn the attention of the media and academic researchers it still isn't notable. How are you defining notability? -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficiently notable. A OP says, article does not serve any academic, research or public interest. It's just offensive trolling nonsense. Some offensive trolling nonsense could rise to the level of notability, I suppose. These dudes don't. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by that? What makes you think that the article's topic holds no academic, research or public interest? The sources presented in the article in its current state clearly demonstrate that the topic is the subject of numerous academic and news articles. I'm unclear about what standard of notability you and the nom are applying here. -Thibbs (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article does not serve any academic, research or public interest - According to who? The nomination even points out that they've been written about by academic researchers, and even if not, that's for the secondary sources to determine not for us. It's just offensive trolling nonsense - Again, it's not for us to decide what's "just" anything when determining notability -- it's importance comes from the coverage it receives not the subject itself. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I concur with Thibbs, I'm not sure how exactly the nominator or the "delete" !votes are defining notability. The article has many third party reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. That's all that's needed, and that's what is already present in the article. I don't mean to make bad-faith assumptions, but the people in favor of deletion's rationale seems to border more along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like or condone this sort of activity from internet trolls either, but I also know that that has no bearing on Wikipedia's standard of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it - I completely agree with Thibbs and Sergecross73. Furthermore, this decision, from a prior AfD nom, still applies. Also, olowe2011, just out of curiosity, which of the sources are "self-published" and what made you come to such a conclusion? GuyHimGuy (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 4 previous nominations, 4 keeps, and seemingly no new information here. Presented are two reasons for deletion: (1) the topic is not notable and (2) does not encompass a wide range of discussion which would interest general readers.. The second is of absolutely no consequence to AfD -- that's what maintenance templates and editing are for. As for notability, it is defined by the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. There's no argument, as I perceive here, that there is significant coverage in reliable sources but they aren't notable (of course, subjects that are notable are sometimes deleted for a variety of other reasons). Notability -- and Wikipedia in general -- is indifferent to judgments like, for example, the article is simply about a group which has been known to "troll" and "grief" on popular social media websites or that this group is simply a small selection of unknown persons who disrupt online virtual worlds, this is something anyone can do. The activities of the subject have nothing to do with notability. It isn't the case that we have an article on them because they troll/grief, which indeed anyone can do at any time; we have an article about them because of the coverage they've received when they did so, which not everyone has. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's somewhat remarkably well sourced given the subject matter, surely passes notability requirements as it has in the past. The remaining deletion arguments smell like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.LM2000 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the keeps above. The article is clearly WP:GNG and perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (6th nomination) should be WP:SALTed. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - as this is the fifth nomination, and all the previous nominations have resulted in keeping the article, perhaps repeatedly re-nominating it isn't a wise idea. As I quote from the nomination, "Despite the fact the Patriotic Nigras are mentioned in name by media outlets [...] I do not believe that this alone make[s] a topic or organisation "notable" - err, sorry, but yes it does. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:42, 7 January 2015 (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.