Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society (3rd nomination)


 * 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, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

American Nihilist Underground Society

 * — (View AfD)

Based on the deletion of the article Gay Nigger Association of America (see Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)), I'd say that this article likewise needs to be deleted. And I for one won't be a bit disappointed to see it go, as Wikipedia should be above giving unwarrented publicity to internet trolls.-- Azer Red  Si?  22:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, dunno how much this will interest anyone, but I'm an editor at ANUS and would like to point out a few things. ANUS is the continuation of a hacker/free speech organization from the Houston BBS scene in the 1980s, has been mentioned in Spin Magazine and the Houston Press, has resulted in numerous FBI visits for our members, has published almost a thousand pages of online documentation, has the oldest underground metal site on the net (not just the web, as it predates that -- was an FTP ezine first), and has over 400 active members who do a lot more than troll. We're not a troll organization; we're a political organization and a publisher with its first volume coming out in a few months. Add that to the fact that the website has been online in various forms since 1993 and has been cited in numerous places and you have our importance on the net, which is something others sometimes resent and try to attack. I don't see how our "notability" is up for questioning at all -- we've paid our dues and continue to contribute to the internet community. OH, and I forgot to mention the MacBong which got us mentioned in WIRED. I know we've fought with WikiPedians in the past over this, but I don't see why this has to be acrimonious, since the facts are obvious for all to see. If you have any questions, drop us a line at and we'll talk it over. If that's not enough, come visit the ANUS and see if there's something of interest for you there :) Anus.com 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice that Azer Red is obviously not NPOV as he hates them due to their status as trolls and not their encyclopedic value. I think Azer needs more friends, e-buddies as we call them. --Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, wrong. Hence I said that Wikipedia should be above giving unwarrented publicity to internet trolls. If I thought the organization was notable then I wouldn't nominate it for deletion, but it only gets around as many google hits as the GNAA and that article was deleted. I don't like terrorists either, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to try to have the Osama bin Laden article deleted.-- Azer Red  Si?  15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, why should we assume that you're voting from a NPOV standpoint since you have a link on your userpage to the ANUS homepage, with whom you say you take interest?-- Azer Red  Si?  16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Also, I hate them bitterly. --Insineratehymn 04:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you hate them bitterly, then they're obviously notable, eh? Eh?  EH?  LOL.  Notice how this is more a POV issue than anything else?  --Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Insineratehymn has admitted vandalizing the article through several sockpuppets. Prolog 18:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Skraeling 07:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) — Skraeling (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per nom- DE SU  05:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable per precedent of article deletions such as Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) and Articles for deletion/Bantown --Einsidler 12:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Anyone who says otherwise is a homosexual pedophile. LOL I'm voting!!--Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One more comment like this and you'll be blocked indefinitely. There will be no further warnings. El_C 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you'd do that.... you're a communist. --Iconoclast 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needed like, what, 10-18 or so Vote For Deletions until they got the GNAA article deleted. That says quite a bit about this "democracy", in which we need to vote again and again until we get the results we want. LOL. --Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The subsequent nominations of the article were not made by the same person over and over again. The point you've raised actually rather helps to emphasize Wikipedia's democratic nature: if valid arguments are raised and consensus is reached about deleting an article, then simply the fact that many previous deletion noms have not gone through won't result in the article automatically being kept without the arguments in favor of its deletion being examined.-- Azer Red  Si?  01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why it took eighteen tries to get it deleted. LOL.--Iconoclast 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, unless someone can present an argument why the article should be deleted. All users, including the nominator, have failed to do so. GNAA was deleted as an unverifiable organization lacking media coverage. This is not the case with this one (MTV, Yahoo! , Houston Press ). Also, this was kept two months ago and nothing has changed since. Prolog 18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-Notable, little significance, does it really exist? Should we care?  Would people who belong to this organization (if it existed) care if we deleted the article?  They probably would be the first to vote for deletion, if they thought that voting would be worth the effort Atom 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is iffy, but verifiability is not. SirFozzie 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Prolog. Honestly, this is one of THE most widely-known metal sources, and it's nihilism section has gotten mentions in at least one mainstream publication (the Houston Press article).  I think it's kinda obvious by now the only reason people are voting against it is either "I haven't heard of it" or "I don't like it," neither of which are valid reasons for article deletion.  Ours18 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known, well noted website in both metal music/culture and philosphical circles as well as recipient of some mainstream media coverage. Jeffcrukk 12:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC) — Jeffcrukk (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. It's a real website.  I see no valid reason for deleting the article.  I personally don't need to know anything more about the group, but Wikipedia isn't here for me.  It's here for everyone.  Leave it.  Chadlupkes 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT a web directory and per few of the cited sources meeting WP:RS Dragomiloff 11:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Prolog, and simply because it has verifiability via media coverage (which would indicate notability, would it not?). Google hits aren't the only gauge of something being notable or not. Edward Wakelin 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep its real... its been covered in the media... its being afd'd by someone obviously trolling... and its a 3rd nomination... everything about this nomination makes me want to indef block the nom...  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may be that you "hate them bitterly", or love them passionately, but neither is a valid reason for deletion or inclusion, and such !votes should be swiftly discounted; see WP:ILIKEIT for details.  The comparison of this highly notable group to GNAA is apples and oranges, and I'm afraid there are more than enough reliable sources on the subject that it meets and exceeds the standards set forth by WP:ORG guidelines.  In short, an obvious keep.  Silensor 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nom has not made a valid argument for deletion, particularly in the context of a renom, by citing an unrelated deletion discussion (precedent does not apply) and making an ad hominem remark about trolls and publicity. I have no opinion concerning this group, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers all topics, even those we don't like. This organization is listed in the bibliography of The Encycopedia of Heavy Metal as an authoritative website. That is good enough for inclusion here. --JJay 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.