Deletion of Anonymous (group)

Comment: the society of Anonymous has an active presence on the internet, complete with a speech community, code of conduct, and rituals which are all elements that make an interesting article that I would want to read about.  Today the information is out there from  and the article itself has a great start
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Satisfies  (multiple independent reliable sources), marginally, and seems distinct enough from all of the suggested merge targets that a merge would be awkward and unhelpful to readers.  Agree that it needs improvement, but it is already better than most stubs. I don't see any  problems
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP)

Comment: Please see . Also, it's not a matter of whether Anon exists outside of Chanology but whether it is notable outside of Chanology
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GOOGLEHITS)

Comment: it just barely passes , but in my opinion 1/2 of the article should be removed, including the unsourced lede. We can wait until people have done some real scholarship on it (not the trivial, hysterical tv news reports) before we get into details. Right now, the term anonymous just sounds like a synonym to me, an internet mob stated in different terms
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Can we just keep the article and get on with it?  Clearly  applies here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: The article is already adequately sourced, but over time it could be expanded from most likely hundreds more / secondary sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: Having looked over  I also read this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability of earch engine test and think that my comment stands, though I will spend some quality time with goog and figure out a better search string
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GOOGLEHITS||WP:S)

Comment: As per , especially in light of recent events.  If it fails to pass  however, I believe it still improves Wikipedia through inclusion.  As far as I know there has never been a reliable source to find unbiased information about Anonymous.  Thus, even if it fails other policies as mentioned in delete comments above, it qualifies under .  I for one have felt that we needed an article on Anonymous since before Project Chanology began
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N||WP:IAR)

Comment: This is not a "media fad". Anonymous has been around for years before project chanology and the media took notice - and though it may not be entirely relevant to this article's validity, I can tell you that Anonymous is not going anywhere either. Furthermore, the protests were not a one-off thing; ''project chanology is continuing''. It's highly likely that media coverage will continue as well, particularly with respect to Anonymous - and I know "#CRYSTALBALL", but then don't go predicting with such certainty the absolute opposite either
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)