Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Article already deleted. Joyous 23:07, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

American Nihilist Underground Society

 * Interesting and telling that all of my comments have been deleted, including links that correct your incorrect Google information. What are you afraid of? Come on, grow up. 67.10.73.69 03:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is presumeably Prozak, whose comments were moved below to be in chronological order, just like everyone else's. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable website, apparently vanity. Alexa doesn't like my browser, but Google shows only 151 incoming links, and the 83 that are from outside the anus.com domain are mostly blogs. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:03, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Previous VFD; result was delete. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 21:14, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you going to fix your incorrect Google information? --Prozak 01:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Josh Cherry 18:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notable, A.N.U.S is ten years old and very influential. Incognito 19:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This user's contributions are limited to the GNAA VFD, his user page, and now this page. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Incognito has 12 edits. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Society with important implications on Nihilist community. See [www.nihil.org center for nihilist studies]
 * The above by anon 194.143.75.179, whose only four contributions have been to remove the vfd tag from the page, add one here (screwing it up once), and the above vote. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:29, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Society has existed for over ten years, plus has been a leading reviewer of metal and the Nihilistic Philosphy.{User:Iconoclast}
 * This user has been accused of being a troll or sockpuppet; see here for more.. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * This has no bearing on whether or not this article is encyclopedic or not. Please stay on topic. Dmdx86 20:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Iconoclast's has 38 edits; his first was today. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Noteworthy, highly influential. Perhaps article should describe its philosophy more in-depth to distance itself further from any possible "vanity" criticism. {User:Sidhe}
 * Good lord; you created a new account just to comment on this VFD? -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is Sidhe's only edit. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those of you moving toward Delete, have you actually looked at the site? There's a wealth of content, much of which is not exactaly subjective - notably such elements as an extensive library of music information and review.  My suspicion is that this VfD is motivated more by certian associations the society might have rather than any legitimate concerns about its content.  Mabye if it had a linux section influential wiki-walkers might be more apt to accept it? {this comment by 69.151.255.185; this is that IP's first edit}
 * Delete. Society is well established in the metal underground, and has been EXTREMELY influential in their overall ideology. But still, this site is shit. Adroyt 18:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This user is also a troll. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Being a troll has no bearing on whether someone's opinion is valid or not here. Should we discount your opinion because you have different view on society than someone else? Dmdx86 20:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Trolls by definition are malicious users who do not have the community's best interests at heart. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 01:27, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have done nothing malicious. Now you are just blatantly slandering me. Just who is the troll here?Dmdx86 01:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are a troll, and I've never called you one. Notice that my comment was directed toward Adroyt. You alleged that trollness should be irrelevant, and I responded in disagreement. At no point were you called a troll. Actually, I would also like to apologize to Adroyt and withdraw that accusation for lack of evidence. Perhaps I confused him/her with another user; God knows there's been plenty of ANUS fans running around. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 02:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Adroyt's first edit was today. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, how am I a troll? I saw no need to create an account until I wanted to work on something important, my past contributions have been minor edits to various pages under IP only. Don't you get banned for slandering people?
 * Keep. Not sure if I have enough contributions to vote but nonetheless I will add my opinion. ANUS has been around since 1987 and publishes all sorts of written literary and philosophical work. I don't think its fair that Gay Nigger Association of America gets put up for VfD 5 times and wins each time and then someone comes here and complains about something of a similar (but obviously different) vein. I think the attention that ANUS members have received on the Internet through its websites (more than one), contributions to Metal, and insights into the philosophy of nihilism make it noteworthy. Also, the article is hardly vanity any more than the entry about Slashdot is vanity. It also smacks of ignorance to say that ANUS is just a website when it is far more that, ANUS exists outside of its web presence and the website exists only as an extention of what they do. Just becuase it has a funny name doesn't mean it deserves to be deleted. Also, I would like to note that on many VfDs of past, I have seen votes for keep removed because they were "sockpuppets" or people who haven't contributed enough or whatever but votes for delete never received such scruitiny. Just something to keep in mind if you really are interested in being objective. -dmdx86 19:05, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet another user whose only contributes have been to ANUS, aside from voting in the GNAA VFD months ago. A sockpuppet complaining about accusations of sockpuppeteering; how droll. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dmdx86 has 18 edits. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * So just becuase I have voted for something unpopular to some and helped edit the page for this entry it makes my opinion invalid? I am not a sockpuppet as I did not create this account for the purpose of stuffing the votes here. Interesting how you don't have anything else to say to counter my arguments but wish to block people merely becuase they agree with unpopular groups/entries. Dmdx86 20:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If you'll notice, I voted to keep this article, because I agree with your argument. What I am protesting (vehemently) are the tactics used by you and your cohorts, outlined here. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 22:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. --Lysol 19:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain and comment (Changed to Delete based on further information and evidence regarding trolling and sockpuppet activity.) I don't know enough about this org to vote at this time, but I will verify that an org of this name has at least been around awhile: I can specifically remember it going back at least to 1997, which alone puts it ahead of the vast majority of VfD canditates. I do think that if kept, it should be cleaned up: philosophical and musical interests should be retained, but trolling and IRC activities should be removed as unworthy of encyclopedic mention. Leaning towards keep and cleanup at this time, but will reconsider deletion if more information should arise. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 19:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am roughly in agreement about IRC; to me, it's a means to an end. Trolling will be explained in a future article about what happens when discourse dies (rest assured it will cite the use of the term "sock puppet" by paranoid Wikipedians); as a nihilist, I don't believe in "good" and "evil" or other philosophical Absolutes (non-philosophical absolute: I enjoy candycanes), thus I can't say I'm against trolling as a means, especially when the audience is as ill-informed as most are in the current time. Because of that, however, it's important that we as nihilists uphold the value of trolling, since discourse is dead. Prozak 03:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This may be a misunderstanding. I'm not saying anything about trolling or IRC on any moral grounds.  It's the non-encyclopedic quality of it that concerns me.  As I said below, Wikipedia is essentially a huge online reference book.  In 20 or 30 years' time, people will still be looking up Martin Luther King, Jr. and Stephen Hawking and possibly even Tom Green, but is anybody going to need to know what so-and-so said in IRC last Tuesday or how many times they posted on 4chan?  Hell, no.  Just because something is true or accurate doesn't mean it should necessarily be put in an encyclopedia.  Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  04:20, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there's also a middle ground between IRC and Tom Green; I'm not really sure anyone will care about those two even in fifty years, seeing how Martin Luther King plagiarized everything he ever "wrote" and Tom Green is, well, mediocre as well. ANUS has, as you said, been around for a long time and raising more hell than not. If WikiPedia cannot recognize that, I suggest it is the vanity of WikiPedians speaking. Prozak 04:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Trolling is talked about in Slashdot's entry as well as the Gay Nigger Association of America's entry. GNAA has survived VfD 5 times, so I think it was been pretty well established that talking about trolling is acceptable. Also, it is totally unfair that a newish article in progress gets put up for VfD before it has a chance to be improved. --dmdx86 Dmdx86 19:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And that is precisely the problem. If trolling is a major part of this org's activities, then the org itself likely isn't important enough to be on WP. Both of the above are bad examples: Slashdot is obviously notable for much more than anything related to trolling, and the fact that GNAA has been up for VfD 5 times should clue you in that many of us here at WP don't consider trolling groups encyclopedic (and besides, GNAA would seem to be more famous than ANUS anyway).  Think of it this way: this is an encyclopedia, a research tool for the ages.  When somebody accesses WP twenty or thirty years from now, do you really think they'll give a crap what someone said on some forum or IRC channel?  Of course not.  Now, if ANUS really supports musical and philosophical interests, and has made contributions to those fields, tell us more about them in the article, and the less (if anything) said about trolling, the better, so as to keep it encyclopedic.  As it stands my vote is leaning toward deletion unless additional evidence is provided as above.  Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  22:04, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to remember that GNAA won each and every one of its VfDs. Just because a vocal hypocritical minority doesnt like something does not indicate lack of encyclopedic value. May I note that what Wikipedia considers "encyclopedic" differs quite alot from what a printed encyclopedia would consider to fit that definition and not print even half of the stuff Wikipedia lists. I see all sorts of obscure social and cultural things on Wikipedia but when someone posts something that totally contradicts what most of you accept as the norm in society, you all go nuts. How can ANUS describe its philosophical and metal contributions (which are on the webiste which you obviously did NOT visit) if the page is going to get delted anyway? Dmdx86 01:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Most of the above commentators are trolls or sockpuppets. We should keep a very short article under this name, but most of these trolls need to be blocked. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * You should be more specific. Who here specifically are trolls?  What makes a troll?  Otherwise, it smacks of blatant alarmism.  ANUS has quite a few articles that I've come into contact with several times over the last decade. --199.174.252.101 00:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's been around for at least a decade, and is definitely notable within the nihilism community, even if the average person hasn't heard of it. --Rolloffle 19:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The article undoubtedly needs heavy cleanup (like what happened last month to the GNAA article), but should be kept. Sam Hocevar 21:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like the supporters to take into consideration that Keep votes by new accounts are not helping your cause. We've seen this before, and it only convinces people that you're acting in bad faith, and that your articles should preferrably be deleted just to make sure you don't bother us. Don't do it. You're free to argue the article's merits for inclusion, but don't try to pretend your votes are accurate representations of members of the Wikipedia community (and we do rather want that, to make sure that you understand what we're trying to do here in the first place). We won't buy one-shot votes anyway, and it's just going to tempt people into voting on the authors and "what would happen" if we had such an article. Keep in mind that this vote will be tallied by a human being, who will take legitimacy of votes into account. Getting the most Keep votes in does not mean automatic victory. This is one discussion you cannot win by just opening a can of members and supporters, and pointing out how unfair they are being treated by us. You need facts, you need to exhibit an understanding of our policies, and you need to make a coherent argument. I have seen none of this. I wish you the best of luck with your organization, but I don't believe Wikipedia can have an article on it without compromising its integrity. JRM 02:52, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Delete, a non-notable vanity. Khanartist 21:12, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shouldn't this be a speedy candidate? Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * delete, kill the sockpuppets. Dunc|&#9786; 21:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Give up, deletionists. There is no reason to remove or even truncate this article. GNAA Popeye 22:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. --fvw *  22:28, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * Delete - sockpuppet heaven - David Gerard 23:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, a wealth of information about metal that is unrivaled.Baxter0 23:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet another account created solely to comment on this VFD. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 01:27, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Put up or shut up.
 * Just so as you know, we can check the list of your contributions, which indicates that User:Baxter0 has only ever edited this page. You might find a different argument more effective. It is typical of VfD to view the votes of anonymous or just-registered users with some skepticism, regardless of how they vote. You might serve your cause better by allowing more established users to vote. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The arguments should be judged by themselves, not by looking at the editor.Baxter0 01:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Prozak) The site has been around since early 1995; before that, it was a directory on the old paranoia.com (you DO remember that, don't you? if not, I suspect a newbie, no offense). Previous to that, it was represented by an FTP space for the undiscovered country ezine, one of the first ezines and arguably the first in literature. Previous to that, it was represented well on a series of bulletin boards, most notably the Apocalyptic Funhouse, which if you called Houston in the 1980s you will remember. Here's our old text file archive on textfiles.com, a site you also hopefully mention: http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/ANUS/ And regarding incoming links, your Google syntax is broken; try this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=link%3A*anus.com&btnG=Search which will yield you "about 2,240 English pages" linking to anus.com or subdivisions thereof. Finally, I find this voting process to be the kind of pathetic clique orientation/in-group psychology that makes the Internet post-1996 quite pathetic. WikiPedia deserves better, at least if it wishes to be accepted by mature people. Prozak 01:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Astoundingly enough, your search for *anus.com finds more hits than plain anus.com. Even so, there's only 410 unique ones listed. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:57, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems you're trying to cover up your error? The underground metal community, and definitely the philosophical one, is a small one, and anus.com is blocked via all current web filters (most of whom assume we're a porn site). I think WikiPedia is, through the users here, failing to recognize reality past the end of its nose. Prozak 02:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Another sockpuppet, this vote is the user's first edit. --fvw *  01:05, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * No, fool, I'm one of the site's admins and I'm defending it. Notice that I also fixed some items on the ANUS entry and now am going through your death metal links :) --Prozak 01:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that fvw *  is now threatening to delete my account for calling him a fool after he made a personal attack on me, calling me names (sockpuppet) without taking the time to realize I was indeed contributing to the article in question - see here. This is not very professional of you, nor very mature, and I find the entire situation to reek of bad psychology. Fess up to hypocrisy, fvw ;) Prozak 02:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps, he's had better things to do than sit editing WP pages. Derision 01:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant, at least because it was the first website or zine to recognize metal as anything other than "beer and bullet belts" music and create the idea of "ambient metal". Also, very well known and influential within the metal scene.  Derision 01:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Painfully obvious sockpuppet, user page was created by User:Adroyt. --fvw *  01:09, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * You are taking this sockpuppet business too far. Just because it is the user's first edit does not diminish the argument for the usefulness of the website. - Baxter0 01:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Check the IP addys- obviously not a sockpuppet. Derision 01:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You say that like the gnaa isn't training you to use anonymous proxies. Good dogs! ruff 66.144.4.52 01:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Come on, I'm sure you know that WP blocks anonymous proxies. Derision 02:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless, Derision's edit history (including vandalizing my user page) is hardly encouraging. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 02:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice ad hominem that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As for my edit history, I created the Immolation (band) page, and added links to the official sites for several bands, so you can't say that I've not contributed anything. Derision 02:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sock-puppets and trolls are out in force: never a reassuring sign.   The www.anus.com Web site has an Alexa rank of around 80,000.   Conclusion: not a notable web-site.    --BM 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * A method of determining value that does not require even viewing the site material seems questionable.Baxter0 01:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * User:BM never said that he did not view the site, only that Alexa demonstrates that it is not popular. That's compelling evidence for non-notability. And I did check the website, before I cast my ballot. No change of vote. Khanartist 01:41, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Has there been any in-depth analysis as to the objectivity or accuracy of Alexa's rankings? Again, far less notable gets put into Wikipedia every day and none of you complain. Dmdx86 01:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So-called alleged sockpuppets are not a justifucation for deletion. Far less notable groups get a pass on Wikipedia, yet when there are groups that defies social norms or social order, you all go nuts and demand deletion. How is this for hypocrisy? Dmdx86 01:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets are not grounds for deletion. They are grounds for blocks, and ignoring their votes on VfDs, as explained here. If it is suspected that users are using sockpuppets to evade WP policy, the admins will take action. Khanartist 01:52, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * There are no sockpuppets being used here, AFAIK. I should disclaim that there is another user who might be posting here from the same IP address becuase we both go to the same University which has us all behind the same IP. Although I have not contributed much to Wikipedia, my username has been active for far longer than this article which sould be sufficent proof that I am not a sockpuppet, despite blatantly false claims. Dmdx86 01:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This site is well known in philosophical circles and in the metal community beyond the internet. Despite vociferous detractors, it has a long history, extensive content, and authors several definitive FAQ contributions to USENET and the net community.Sodomizer 02:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sodomizer has two edits, both to this vfd. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 02:14, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, sock puppets only add weight to the delete vote. Megan1967 02:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Putting personal feelings and accusations of trolling aside, can any evidence be given to discredit the merit of the philosophy of the ANUS, or the value of the information concerning heavy metal music? And is there any evidence that the information is redundant thus making the site unnotable?Baxter0 02:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, not encyclopedic - wikipedia is not a web guide. --Spangineer &#8734; 02:17, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * User is flaming Christian, and ANUS.com says very little of positive note about that kooky religion. Thus, I say he's a "sock puppet." Hey, did I do it right? LOL Prozak 02:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it entertaining that you call me a sock puppet when I have 1300 edits, and you have 25, practically all related to this VfD. But, by all means, continue destroying your credibility if you like. --Spangineer &#8734; 03:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is where I draw the line. I realize we set a precedent with the GNAA, but Wikipedia is not consistent. The article as it stands gives no independent sources, it lists only activities established by the ANUS itself, and there is a strong reason to suspect that all of the factual content has been supplied by ANUS members. This makes the article unverifiable. As an inclusionist, I'm careful about judging notability, but I don't compromise on verifiability. The article waxes prolific on activities that have not been established to have been noticed by anyone outside of ANUS, other than those they have brought to attention themselves by self-admitted trolling. The GNAA was borderline. This, IMO, is on the wrong side of the border. The threshold for verifiability is far too low. Multiple independent references are needed, and they must be reasonably accessible. Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor is it an index for any association of individuals who think they are notable (regardless of whether that association is formed to play chess or to promote nihilism). On those grounds, delete.
 * I dunno; how would go about "proving" this when most of the sources have moved on and are now part of history? It's linked from most major metal sites, but without an exhaustive list of those there's no way to "prove" that. Prozak 03:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * A few useful links:
 * Web Archive From April 3, 1997
 * Google Linking Far More than 83 incoming links
 * Editorial Mentioning ANUS.com as infamous Prozak
 * Speedy deleted as recreation of a deleted article. Neutralitytalk 03:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm the recreated article had the same content as the deleted one? (Not just "there was something there about the same subject"?) Mind you, I'm not questioning your authority in doing so, just want to make sure. JRM 03:24, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Update. Predictably, the article has been recreated, warranting its replacement by one of those nifty protected templates that pretend there's no article there. This is not a good day. JRM 03:37, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the new article is (was) not identical to the previously deleted one. (However, the subject matter is the same, whether it is claiming to be about the website or the society.) I don't think they're really different enough to merit a new discussion, but I (or another administrator) can post the text if you want to compare. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 03:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, though it's bordering on just SDing because you can somewhat make the argument and because it's the right thing to do for Wikipedia (which I will be the last to dispute). I think letting the VfD discussion run to its completion would have been more productive, if only to allow us to thoroughly refute the supporting arguments (or what little there were), as the previous VfD discussion had none to speak of. I am not so far gone that I'm going to waste admin time to make a fuss about it, though. I'll consider this a premature VfD, and to my opinion consensus among independent observers was sufficiently reached. JRM 03:55, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * I, too, wish to register my discomfort with the SD of this article. The content seemed different enough from the anus.com article deleted previously, and the notability question wasn't fully resolved to my satisfaction. However, this really isn't all that important to me, and I'll certainly be glad to be done with this mess. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 04:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Discomfort with speedy for me too. A Google usenet search seems to establish notability. --SPUI 04:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the speedy If it failed VfD once, it surely would have again. And it would have been a rough week indeed. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  04:24, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted and add anus.com to spam blacklist - even less relevant to anything than the GNAA. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Any article which has to have the creation of tons of sock puppets like this fails on its own merit -- inability to establish its own notability.  RickK 05:35, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE++ Anus.com is full of uncouth people so I am changing me e-vote (did I do this right?) we can't allow sockpuppets like these the right to vote -- they're undermining the wikipedia democratic process.--Iconoclast 06:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete barring evidence of actual notability. -Sean Curtin 07:49, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * deleteGeni 11:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 13:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Carrp 19:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlike GNAA, I can't imagine anyone looking this one up. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * ANUS cited in press release. The End Records quoted us regarding Darkthrone, one of the founding black metal bands. See press release here. Also, did I mention we're in Mecklermedia's "On Internet" going back to 1994? That's a print publication of Internet sites. Oh, and of course the home of the Heavy Metal FAQ and the Death FAQ! These links are in the now-deleted ANUS entry on WikiPedia. Prozak 20:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My balls hurt It was already deleted a while ago, there's noway all you geniuses posting "delete" after the "speedy delete" mention could have ever seen it.
 *  You make a valid point: there are a lot of people voting for deletion that haven't even seen the page!!!!! I believe that the Deletion crowd has been gathering up unqualified people just to vote for delete. This is obviously scandalous and I believe that there is a concentrated effort to undermine this organization --Iconoclast 03:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that administrators can see deleted articles. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 08:06, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, regardless, it seems amateurish to delete an article before it has a chance to even be written well. --Iconoclast 02:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Trollvertisement. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete CryptoDerk 15:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nunh-huh 07:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not been roped into voting on this; I simply wish to comment that ATM the article is deleted, and I hope it stays that way. Objections can be raised at VfU. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 23:28, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also wish to comment that since the article was deleted, there is no way for voters to see what it looks like or -- as I suggested -- to improve it and try to make it more encyclopedic and more NPOV. Sam Hocevar 23:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Period 23:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.